klein, to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 803, an act to reform and strengthen the work force investment system of the nation to put americans back to work and make the united states more competitive in the 21st century, senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 415, the nays are 6. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendments are agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what rpose -- purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 661, resolution

providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 6016, making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4718, to amend internal revenue code of 198206 modify and make permanent depreciation. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to house resolution 641, and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 4923. will the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, kindly ake the chair?

the chair: the committee will be in order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4923, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, an amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, had been disposed of and the bill had been read hrough page 19, line 14.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california, page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $22 million. page 20, line 11, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $9,810,000. page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $30,935,000. page 26, line 24rk after the dollar amount insert reduced by $9,551,000. page 52, line 20, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $49,062,000. page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount insert increased

by $121,358,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. ever since 1835, the rules of the house have forbidden spending money except for purposes authorized by law. yet last year, the 11 appropriations bills reported out of the house propings committee con tained over $350 billion for spending on unauthorized programs. the rule against unauthorized spending cannot be enforced because it's always waived by the resolutions that bring these propings to the floor. -- these appropriations to the floor. the bill before us today contains $24 billion in such unauthorized spending in programs that have not been reviewed by the authorizing committees since as far back as

1980, that was jimmy carter's last year in office. i'm sure that some of these programs are valuable and worthy of taxpayer dollars, but surely others are not. the fact that they've not been authorized in as much as 35 years ought to warn us to be at least a little more careful about continuing to fund them. rather than reviewing our spending decisions and making tough choices about spending priorities, congress simply rubber stamps these programs out of habit. it's no wonder we're so deeply in debt with so little to show for it. now my amendment does not defund these unauthorized programs as the house rules would require. it simply freezes spending on them at last year's levels. the cuts contained in this amendment total just $121 of on, which is about .36 1% of the total spending of this bill. if year after year, the authorizing committees haven't these hese worthies --

programs worthy of being re-authorized, maybe they're not worth the money we're shoveling at them either. it's the proper role of the house of representatives to control the purse strings of our government. when we do a sis der vis to our constituents when we allow this kind of spending growth to occur on auto pilot, absent any oversight. i look forward to the day when congress will again reassert its constitutional prerogative to control federal spending and enforce its own rules that prohibit spending blindly on unauthorized programs. however, in the meantime, adopting this amendment, merely freezing the spending in these unauthorized programs, shaving just .36 of 1% of this appropriation by freezing that spending on unauthorized programs, i hope that will be a small, symbolic step toward reclaiming the house's responsibility to act as watchdog over the treasury. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i rise to express opposition to the gentleman's proposal. the gentleman stood up earlier tried to cut and from essential accounts and i ccept his desire to try to balance the budget. when his party shut down the wrench nt and threw the of shutdown into every program that the nation depends upon, it created quite a bit of chaos around here and around the country. money was wasted on furloughs and people spending time, the military, trying to decide how they were going to rotate different operations and so forth. it was a terrible period that we lived through.

and we're still taping and gluing our programs back together after all of that. some of these work of -- some of the work of the authorizing committee under your leadership were not able to clear their bills on time so the gentleman's solution is to say, well, you know, none of that happened so i'm just going to take this opportunity to go after the energy and water bill and kind of take this and this and this and this, and propose this amendment and i think that the gentleman's goal of fiscal responsibility is one that i share, but this isn't the way to do it. this isn't the way to pick some programs, and we don't even know their complete -- what impact it will have across the country. i would rather have a much more thoughtful presentation that would come before us and the programs, what's he talking about? the same one this is afternoon

he was trying to cut. the renewable energy program, talking about cutting nuclear, fossil energy, he really doesn't like the department of energy. i bet if you -- if you ask the gentleman he, doesn't want the department of mortgage exist for our country. if you look around the world, i'm probably not wrong on that fact. so this is just another way to try to cause havoc over at the department of energy. as i said earlier today, i view what's happening in that department as one of the most important strategic set of investments that this country has to make. why create more havoc over this? we've had difficulties in trying to balance our energy accounts over the years, petroleum, imported petroleum still constitutes 40% of what americans are paying for, the average family, every year, $2,800 comes out of their pocket for gasoline. we need to modernize our fleet.

we need to -- there's a lot of gas, natural gas converses doing -- conversions going on in our country for trucks. we need to not throw a wrench into that, but to hasten it. we need modernize dep grids, whatever that's going to look like. we need we need to make sure our energy policy plays on all keys, not just a few. this isn't the time to create more havoc following on the havoc that has been created in the past, which i'm sure the gentleman supported and pick on the department of energy. we need a much more coherent strategy to balance our budget and we need to put people back to work and through innovation in this country and balancing of our trade zivet, begin to re-invest those dollars here back at home.

we have about, i think $34 billion in this entire bill. our energy trade deficit with the world this year is a little over $110 billion -- the deficit this year is eight times bigger than our bill. if you look at what you are trying to do, it is counterproductive and we need to modernize our energy system here and not picking it apart and creating more havoc but investing in america's future. i oppose the gentleman's amendment and let's get on with the regular order here. let's get this bill cleared and go to conference with the senate and do for america what she needs and restoring energy security in order our liberty not be threatened in this generation and the future. i would be pleased to yield to the gentleman. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, let me say

mr. simpson: i agree with the sentiments in that the rules of the house say we shouldn't appropriate money for any unauthorized program. unfortunately, the authorizing committees have not re-authorized an awful lot of these programs throughout the government. in fact, a few years ago, i tried to reduce funding by eliminating any money for endangered species listing because it was unauthorized for 26 years. we lost on the floor on that. but his sentment is correct and we need to make sure the authorizing committees do their job. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, i can forgive my colleague from ohio for misstating california's history as she did earlier today but not the recent history that we were all quite familiar with. i would remind the gentlelady that this house passed three

appropriations bills over to the senate, funding the entire government last year, including a lot of things that we would like to reform, that we agreed to fund all of those spending with one exception. we asked for a one year delay in he train wreck that has become obamacare. the american people see that was a realistic request, unfortunately the senate chose not to act and that's what caused the government to seize up and shut down. i want to correct the gentlelady in her suggestion that somehow this is minnesota vated because i don't like energy. i love energy. and i want to see it efficiently researched and that is best done by the private sector using its own money rather than the politicians using other people's money to reward other companies.

if these programs were all so worth while, why is it that the authorizing committees have not bothered to re-authorize them in a span of up to 35 years? i suggest that that fact speaks for itself. and until these programs are properly reviewed and re-authorized, all i'm asking is, we don't keep increasing their budgets, we freeze them until the authorizing committees review them and re-authorize them. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mcclintock: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition?

>> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. perry. after the dollar amount insert increased by $20 million. page 26 line 24, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by ,100,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from pennsylvania, and a member oppose, each will control five minutes. mr. perry: i would like to thank chairman simpson and ranking ember kaptur for their diligence. reducing our dependence on foreign oil should be something that we should pursue. renewables is n, a significant component. this cuts hydropower by over $20

million and this amendment would seek to restore funding to hydropower. and it's offset with a department of energy administrative cost. that's where the money is coming from. and according to the budget office, the amendment reduces outlays by $8 million. hydropower is available in every region, not just the east coast. whole way across the country to the point that 2,200 hydropower plants provide america it's most abundant source of clean, renewable electricity and accounts for 67% of domestic renewable generation or 7% of the total electricity generated. this could increase that to 15%. creating over one million jobs by 2025. 1.4 million, according to my figures. mr. chairman, hydroelectricity

is predictable. you can count on it. it's not variable. you don't have to count on the wind blowing or the sunshining, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year as long as the rape is falling for generating power. you don't need a bank of batteries or the wind to be blowing or don't need an alternative source of baseload. power is being generated and it provides at a relatively low maintenance cost. it is the most efficient and economic form of renewable energy. and it's unobject truce i have. not bothering anybody or birds flying into it or bats being killed on its blades. the fish swim right through it. now, it does face a significant regulatory approval process. there is much red tape, which

equates up to 15 years in permitting cycles. and that's a detractor that needs to be addressed. o much so there are 60,000 projects waiting final approval and pending before the commission in 45 of our 50 states that have this electricity if we could get through this red tape, mr. chairman. of our 80,000 dams in the united states, 600 of them have an immediate capability to produce energy at this moment. harnessing conventional hydro energy will create a renewable energy source for our country. it's not just about pennsylvania or the 4th district that i represent, but about all of our country becoming energy independent on renewable. and i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. while i oppose the amendment, i understand my colleague wants to see increased funding for conventional hydropower. i understand that. i'm a big fan of hydropower. in the pacific northwest why we have some of the cheapest electricity. the bill before us increases hydropower 1.7 million above last year. i look forward to working with the gentleman on this important program as we move forward through this process. ut i do oppose this amendment. ms. kaptur: i wanted to align my remarks with yours and i would oppose the gentleman's amendment at this point. the potential of hydropower is hydro , both low power

and i'm sure idaho has big falls and pennsylvania in many places. but the low power hydro that is characteristic of the great lakes region offers enormous potential and there are new inventions to be had in capturing the power of water even as it moves in streams that flow just at grade. we need to allow this conversation to influence the department of energy so that there is more feanings given to hydro and to the development of new technologies, water dropping , being elevated and being dropped in different parts of the country as well as existing water sheds being used more effectively. i bet we could get more than 15% if we really put our minds to it. i wanted to offer general support of the idea, even though

we can't support your amendment today. let's hope in the future we uld find a better way with hydropower. mr. simpson: i yield back. mr. perry: reclaiming the balance. i look forward to working with the chairman on this and would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection. for what purpose does gentlelady from oregon seek recognition? the clerk: amendment offered by the gentlelady from oregon. insert increased by $9 million. page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $9 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution, the gentlelady from oregon and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. bonamici: i rise today because of the power and potential of water. in support of an amendment i'm pleased to offer with

congressman michaud and congresswoman ping agree. our amendment would increase department of energy's water power program by $9 million, a small price tag that will yield a huge return on investment. this increase is offset by the departmental administration account. the modest increase we are supporting will support hydropower and technologies along with marine and hydro technologies. development of these new technologies can offer the united states the chance to lead the world in an emerging area of abundant renewable energy. energy nd hydroki netic from weasks, currents and tides unlike the sun and wind do not stop is an exciting frontier in the renewable sector. oregon state university and the university of washington are using federal funding from the water power program to develop

the northwest national marine renewable energy center that will provide entrepreneurs a domestic location to test waves rather than traveling to scotland to use the european test center. without continued investments, europe will remain the leader. they could generate a significant amount of total amount of energy used in the united states. as congress promotes technologies that can help lower our constituents' energy bills, we must embrace new technologies. with this modest increase, the water power program can do that while continuing to support federal investment in conventional hydropower. i urge adoption of the amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlewoman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition?

mr. simpson: i rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment. it would increase funding within the account. i appreciate my colleague's passion for renewable energy programs and has worked tirelessly to advance research. $1.789 r's funding is billion. and below last year and below the budget request. this is equivalent to the fiscal year 2013 level pre-sequester and nearly $1 billion more than last year's house bill. funding is focused on three main priorities, helping american manufacturers compete in the global marketplace, support weatherization programs and assisting in high gas prices. funding is prioritized to support two main projects, offshore wind demonstration project and enhanced geothermal field test site.

it provides $38.5 million for water power and accepts the budget request proposal for almost even split between the conventional hydropower and the marine technologies program. i support the water program and i would be happy to work with my friend in the event that the account receives additional funding in conference. but we simply cannot afford to increase activities in this bill by diverting funds. and while i'm supportive of reducing the size of government, this amendment would reduce funding that supports 64 people. i must oppose the amendment and urge my members to do the same and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from oregon. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding and rise in support of

this amendment. it supports private sector research, deployment of new american hydropower technology and marine hydrokinetic energy. water power research helped reduce the cost and environmental impact of these reliable, renewable energy sources. mr. michaud: it's very critical for private sector investors. in maine, the ocean renewable power company has deployed our nation's first grid connection, a marine hydrokit kentucky netic energy system, the first in the country. they're working to deploy additional units in other areas of the country. they have invested nearly $30 million in the local economy while creating a re-- or retaining over 100 quality jobs. countries like japan, chile, australia have already shown interest in this american technology and it presents a great opportunity for exporting

american technology. not only will the development of new domestic water powered technology create jobs and reduce energy costs for homes and businesses across the country, but it represents an opportunity for the u.s. to lead the world in an emerging area of renewable and abundant energy. now is not the time for a drastic cut to these important programs. i urge my colleagues to support this very modest amount of money while at the same time realizing that we do have fiscal constraints. yield back to the gentlelady. ms. bonamici: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from idaho has ielded back. ms. bonamici: i urge adoption of the amendment and yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the

noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. ms. bonamici: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from oregon will be postpone the clerk will read. the clerk: page 19, line 15, electricity delivery and reliability, $160 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcnerney of california, page 19, line 24, after the dollar 20 unt insert increase by $ million. page 20 line 19, after the dollar amount insert reduce by $20 million. the chair: the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcnerney: the infrastructure susceptible remains

to threats. the nation's electric grid connects americans with 5,000 mower plants nationwide and about 450,000 miles of transmission line. 70% of those transmission lines and transformers are more than 25 years old and the average age of power plants in this scrint more than 30 years old. between 2003 and 2012, there were 679 power outages, each affecting at least 50,000 people, and costing billions of dollars. the department of energy, the office of electricity delivery and energy reliability works to modernize our nation's electric grid and infrastructure by partnering with industry, academia, and state governments to modernize the grid in our nation's electrical -- and our nation's electrical infrastructure. the amendments my colleague, mrs. ellmers, and i are offering increases funding for

electricity delivery by $20 million and decreases the departmental administration amount by the same amount. making smart investments to address issues facing our nation's electricity infrastructure will have a number of benefits. it will ensure long-term stability and the -- in the electricity and energy systems, it will spur innovation, it will help make the transition to more efficient use of electric power and will create technical and manufacturing jobs. ensuring a reliable and resilient electricity grid will reduce costs for piss and onsumers by saving energy. grid industry groups such as grid wise alliance and the national electrical manufactures -- manufacturers association support this amendment. i urge its adoption. now i would like to yield to my colleague and the amendment's co-sponsor, mrs. ellmers and thank her for her leadership on

this issue. mrs. ellmers: thank you to my colleague, the gentleman from california, and mr. speaker, i do rise today in support of this amendment and i would like to thank him for his leadership as well and working with me to promote further research to protect and improve our nation's energy infrastructure this amendment will have a positive impact on our nation's energy reliability, efficiency and security. it will help us maintain a robust manufacturing presence and ensure the critical research and development to continue in the vital areas of energy transmission, smart grid technology, energy storage and cybersecurity. this technology and advancement in the energy sector are occurring across the country at a rapid pace and there's no better example of the energy's success than in north carolina. this success of research and development is due in part to the strong partnership between

the private sector and universities. mr. speaker, i've seen firsthand on the campus of north carolina state university where they have partnered with industry leaders to innovate grid technologies to create the smart grid center of excellence. i've also seen the positive impact on implementing this technology and the benefits it brings to our rural communities and their rural electric cooperatives. mr. speaker, the growing need for grid reliability and cybersecurity measures to promote our nation's energy infrastructure, i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mr. mcnerney: i vemb. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- mr. mcnerney: i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the amendment would increase

funds to the office of energy elick trissity availability and reliability using funds from the department of administration as an offset. the president's budget request proposes to increase the budget for the office from $147 million to $180 million, a 22% increase which the amendment would achieve. instead, the bill before us provides a balanced increase of $13 million for the office of of electricity availability, that's a larger percentage increase than any other applied energy program in this bill. the underlying intill a larger percentage increase than any other applied energy program in this bill. the bill prioritizes programs within o.e. that keep our electricity grid safe and secure. to that end, the bill provides $47 million to protect the energy sector's critical infrastructure against the ever

present threats of cyberattack and $17 million for infrastructure security including $8 million far strategic operations center to better respond to emerging technologies. we must and have to abide by our allocation and can't afford additional increase toths -- to the o.e. program by dworting -- diverting funds from other responsibilities. it's a choice we've had to make as we balance this bill this has the largest percentage increase of 9% of any other programs in this area of the budget. therefore i must oppose the amendment and urge my members, my colleague, do the same. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, grid reliability is an issue that we're facing. just this last year we faced a physical attack on a substation in the south bay of the bay area, we're seeing increasing

cyberattacks, we also have an opportunity to utilize renewable energy more effectively with grid responsiveness, with the new technology that allows rapid switching. in other words this could help transform our country to a more modern, more reliable, more efficient and more economic grid system. so i think the money would be well spent and i urge my colleagues to support my -- and my colleague ms. elmer's, amendment. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. o -- is not agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 20, line 3. nuclear energy. ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. i would like to take and yield

my time to the gentleman from new york, congressman paul tonko, such a capable and engaged member of this house. mr. tonko: thank you and i appreciate the gentlewoman yielding. mr. speaker, h.r. 4923 is far from a perfect bill. i have serious concerns about some of the policy riders in the bill and i'm disappointed it does not contain higher funding for renewble energy programs. but there are a number of important programs that receive the funding they desperately need. we all know that tough choices have to be made within the overall funding allocation and i want to thank subcommittee chair simpson and ranking member kaptur for their hard work on the bill. earlier this year, i joined with 79 of our colleagues in support of strong funding for two important energy efficiency programs at the department of energy. weatherization assistance program and the state energy program. these programs were underfunded

in recent house appropriations bills and i'm pleased that this bill includes a significant improvement in the funding status for these two programs. i want to thank my colleagues for expressing support for these programs to the committee earlier this year. again, i thank subcommittee chair and ranking member for respond tourg requests for robust funding for these programs. the weatherization and state energy programs not only help our citizens to use energy more efficiently and effectively, these programs create and sustain jobs in communities across our great nation. energy efficiency improvements make homes more comfortable and keep utility costs affordable. they also create jobs for small business contractors in our given local communities. the weatherization assistance program enables seniors and veterans and persons with disabilities and families with low incomes to make energy efficiency improvements that they would otherwise not be able to afford. and lowering their energy bills brings up limited income they can use toward other essentials

like food purchases and medicine. d.o.e. estimates save frgs weatherizing a home of over $400 per year. that is real money to many families who are struggling to make ends meet. the state energy program enable ours home states to develop and implement their own energy efficiency and renewable energy projects that are tailored to address the very specific needs of our individual states. the electricity sector is undergoing, as we all know a significant transformation, the old model of one-way distribution from central generation points is giving way to systems with more distributed generation. grids need to be upgraded and are becoming smarder. security issues need attention and changing economics and regulations are also catalizing changes in this sector. state energy programs have an important role to play in this transformation and support for

these programs will help -- be very help to feel states they work through these changes. on a separate issue, together with our colleagues, representative owens and representative gibson, both of new york, we called for robust funding for d.o.e.'s naval reactors program. the $1.2 billion included for naval reactors in this bill is critical to support three long-term project the ohio class replace. , the fuel handling facility and research and reactor training and maintenance. for years, they have been funded by low requirements, including $151 billion berow the president's fiscal year 2014 request. while i was disappointed to see naval reactors at $162 million below the request, i thank the committee for including some important language.

these research projects are important to our national security and the navy's readiness. the reactors are necessary to training nuclear qualified sailors. unfunded maintenance and repair costs threatened to shut down one of the site's reactors, which would result in 250 fewer nuclear qualified sailors in the fleet next year. i hope that we can work together to make sure this critical program is fully funded moving forward to ensure that the navy's nuclear-powered fleet has the sailors and researchers it needs to operate safely and effectively. the arpa-e program receives funding. it's an important program and

move promising technologies forward into the market through strategic partnerships between government, universities and businesses is vital to our energy security. with that, i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 20, line three, nuclear energy, $899 million. fossil energy research and development. $593 million. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. speier: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. speier of california, page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $35 million. page 59 line 20, after the dollar amount insert by $39

million. the chair: the gentlelady from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. speier: it's not often that i can use a passage from the bible to describe an appropriations bill, but the money wasting allocation of funds in this bill is perfectly described by the gospel of matthew. it observes that for whoever lf to him shall be given and who ever has not from him shall be taken away even that that he has. a socialist turned termed this the matthew fact, the rich get richer and the poorer gets poorer. why on earth are we handing out money to fossil fuel companies? they don't need more abundance. they are receiving more than enough from the federal government as it is, some $4

billion in taxpayer subsidies each year. my amendment is extremely modest. it retains the $562.1 million for r&d that is in the budget, far more, i might add, than the president had in his budget of $475 million. but do we need to increase the r&d budget for fossil fuels beyond the $563 million. let's show the taxpayers we have a little restraint. fossil fuel companies are capable of funding their own research. exxonmobil alone has spent $5 billion since 2008. if more spending on r&d is needed, they more than capable of funding it on their own. perhaps they could reallocate he $144 million or more than

$396,000 they spent last year a day lobbying congress. maybe they would be willing to start a new career in research. here in the federal government where we don't have millions of dollars to throw around, we need to re-examine our investments. appropriations bills are documents that spell out our priorities. r&d sing the fossil fuel budget while splashing renewable r&d budgets by $80 million states loud and clear that we are more interested in funding rich energy companies of the past rather than energy of the future. this amendment is simple, strikes $31 million from r&d and commits it to deficit reduction and maintains the f.y. 2014 funding for this research.

mr. chairman, i will reserve the balance. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition. i appreciate the gentlelady's references from the bible in her debate. always interesting. mr. chairman, i rise to oppose the america. the amendment would reduce funding $31 million in favor deficit reduction. coal, oil and natural gas provide for 82% of the energy used by this nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the majority of our energy needs for the foreseeable future. that's 82%. the bill rejects the administration's proposed reductions to fossil energy, particularly with drastic cuts to the coal program, which is reduced by 29% under the budget request. and instead, funds these programs at $593 million, $31

million above last year. the office of fossil energy will research how heat can be converted into electricity in a cost-cutting efforts, how water can be used in water plants and how coal can be used to produce electricity, electric power, through fuel cells. this amendment would reduce funding for a program that ensures that we use our nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. in fact, if we increase the efficiency of our fossil energy plants as i said before during this debate, we increase the efficiency of our plants by 1%. by just 1% we could power two million households without using an additional pound of fuel from the ground. that's the research we are focusing on with funding this program. we know that american families and businesses have struggled with high energy processes and the fossil energy research program holets the potential to

prevent future high prices and substantially increase our energy security. i oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. speier: you know, we have been having a raging debate in this house over the exim bank and my colleagues are screaming it is corporate welfare. when the three largest oil companies, exxon mobile, bp and shell made over $62.7 billion in the last year and you are sitting here and telling us that giving them $4 billion and another $563 million is not enough that we need to augment by some $31 million, that is pretty darn laughable and with that i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentlelady from california. those opposed, no. . the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. ms. speier: i would like a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. will read. the clerk: naval petroleum and oil shale reserves $19,000 950 ,,000. trategic petroleum reserve $20 5,000,000. northeast home heating reserve and energy information administration, $120 million. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the

last word. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. amendment number 1. the clerk: amendment number one offered, page 22, line 19 insert educe by $500,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentlelady from ohio and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. kaptur: i'm pleased to offer this amendment regarding opportunities for small businesses on behalf of our able and dedicated colleague from texas, congresswoman sheila jackson lee, who had to return to texas on very important official business this evening and she is air-bound i believe at this point. i'm honored to offer it on her behalf. essentially, the amendment

increases funding for the department of energy's office of economic impact and diversity by a minimal amount of $500,000 offset by a reduction of like amount in funding for the energy information administration. this amendment increases funding for the department's office of minority impact, which should be used to enhance the department's engagement with minority programs and other related activity. the office of economic impact and diversity is really a credit to secretary of energy secretary that realizes that participation via equal access is critical to our commitment to ensuring that the department works for all americans, particularly to improve the lives of low-income and minority communities as well as our environment at-large. 20 years ago, president clinton

issued an executive order 12898 directing federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations. and we need to highlight the office of economic impact and diversity in the office of economic impact and diversity because stem education, science, technology, engineering and math education has been a real calling card. it seeks to provide access in these groups in stem, including minorities, native americans and women. mr. chairman, women and minorities make up 70% of college students, but only 45% of undergraduates that are stem-degree holders. that is really a startling statistic, a statistic that women and minorities comprise 70% of college students.

only 45% of them that are undergraduates are stem-degree holders. that is a 2-1 ratio. this large pool of untapped talent is a great source of stem professionals. and now most children under the age of one are minorities, it is critical that we take and close the gap in the number of minorities that seek stem opportunities. i applaud the secretary's commitment which will increase the nation's economic competitiveness and enable our people to realize their full potential and america's full potential. there are a great many scientific rid wills to be solved and perhaps one of these days a minority engineer or biologist will come up with a solution. the larger point is we need to make more stem educators and more minorities to qualify for them and make this country fully representative. the funding provided by this

amendment will ensure that members of underrepresented communities are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to environmental sustainability, preservation and health and education about the importance of environmental sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and how citizens can improve their surroundings in community education efforts, working with teachers, students, they can all learn about radiation, radioactive waste management, and many of the communities that these individuals live in are places where environmental cleanup is so desperately needed based on the legacy costs of our nuclear programs, for example. the department of energy places interns and volunteers from minority institutions into renewable energy programs and the department of energy works to increase low-income and minority access and help students attain graduate degrees and find employment.

the other offices are the minority business and economic development, the minority education and community development, civil rights, diversity and inclusion and council on women and girls and minority banks. we can increase diversity, provide clean energy options and help improve environments which will help greater outcomes. businesses will have more consumers who they may engage in related commercial activities. we must help our low-income and minority communities and ensure equities that are the most vulnerable. i ask my colleagues to enjoy the -- to pass the amendment. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. .

the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 22, line 21, nondefense environmental cleanup. $241,174,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. reid of new york, after the dollar amount insert increased by $4 million, page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $4 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: i rise to offer an amendment that will provide an additional $4 million in funding to the nondefense environmental cleanup line by diverting money

that otherwise would go to the d.c. bureaucracy and putting that money on the front line to this critical piece of necessary work that needs to be done across the country. i would offer, mr. chairman that this amendment supports public safety and health and i recognize, mr. chairman, that we are operating in tough fiscal times and i appreciate the work the subcommittee has done on appropriations by going through this bill in a very thoughtful and methodical way and has offered a good piece of sound legislation. however, i would ask that this amendment be considered and supported by my colleagues because what it fundamentally will do is provide necessary resources for nuclear waste cleanup sites around the nation and ensure that these dollars are spent in a level that recognizes the priority of these efforts to our country and i, in our district, have a site called the west valley demonstration pradget that's one of these types of sites and i have heard rom many of my constituents,

the west valley citizen task force, in particular that devotes a tremendous amount of time to cleeng up these sites, in particular the west valley demonstration site. the report and information i received is that there is a need for consistent funding in this area because if there is not, the long-term capability and the long-term cost to our country to clean these sites up significantly increases because of the lack of consistency in the funding and the necessary funds necessary to go through this tremendous remediation and restabilization effort at these nuclear sites. i'm also pleased, mr. chairman, to rise with support on a bipartisan basis, working with congressman higgins, my colleague in new york, as well as mr. matheson who has joined us in these efforts to recognize across the country thats that priority level type of effort that needs to be done for our

nuclear waste sites across the country. with that, mr. chairman, i'd be pleased to honor -- i will yield to the chairman. mr. simpson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise to support the amendment. i understand the gentleman's concerns for the ongoing efforts, this amendment is a small adjustment to ensure continued progress at the west valley demonstration site, i support it. i yield back. mr. reed: with that, i yield 90 seconds of my time to the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins. mr. higgins: i appreciate mr. reed yielding. i rise in strong support of the amendment which seeks to modestly increase the funding for the nondefense environmental cleanup program. passage of this amendment, as mr. reed said, will ensure that nuclear cleanup sites across the country receive adequate funding, protecting communities from the harmful effects of radioactive wastes. as mr. reed said, the west

valley nuclear waste processing plantest tablied in 1966 in response to federal calls to commercialize the reprocessing of spend fuel. when it terminated operation a few years later, it left in its wake 600,000 gallons of high level radioactive waste a hazardous and unfortunate legacy the community is still dealing with today. this is a public safety and environmental hazard we cannot ignore. the leakage of a plume of radioactive material at site into groundwater underscores the danger posed by the proximity of stream into lake erie. if the waste were to make its way to the great lakes it would be devastating. it's the response thovelt federal government to make sure cleanup continues expeditiously. it's important to maintain our commitment to west valley and other site across the country by supporting these efforts.

i urge support of this important bipartisan amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. reed: i thank the subcommittee chairman for the support in this amendment and ask and thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle for joining nuss this effort and just ask that we support this amendment and move forward and with that, i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 23, line 6, uranium enrichment decontamination and enrichment 071,000.,, the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman seek reck nix? >> i have an amendment designated foster number one at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will re--

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. foster of illinois, page 24, line 1, after the dollar amount insert increasededly $40,155,000. page 28, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $40,155,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from illinois and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. foster: i rise to offer an amendment to increase overall spending for the department of energy's office of science. the underlying bill provides a budget allocation approximately $40 million below the president's request for the office of science. my amendment would restore the funding level to the president's request. our national labs and the major facilities housed at those labs are some of the greatest tools we have to offer researchers and to industry. my amendment would ensure that our national labs are on a sound footing to maintain our role as a global leader in innovation

and scientific research. the greatest long-term economic threat our country faces is the prospect of losing our role as world leaders in science and technology. nothing is more critical to preserving our role as world leaders than the fundamental and applied scientific research that is supported by the d.o.e. office of science. as a physicist who worked at fermi national accelerator lab, i understand the potential of the department of energy's national lab system they contributions to our economy and the wide range of scientific research that they support. the chicago area is home to a number of scientific centers, including fermilab and ar begun national laboratory and the economic impact of those two labs in illinois alone is estimated to be more than $1.3 billion annually. the work done at these labs not only support ours local economy,

employing roughly 5,000 people in illinois, but it is critical to our nation's long-term economic success. but despite the benefits, the economic benefits of scientific research, federal investments in research and development are at historically low levels. in 2014, our federal spending on r&d, both defense and nondefense, amounted to less than 1% of our g.d.p. a trend that simply must be reversed. in fact, over the last three years, federal research and development expenditures decreased by $16.-- by 16.3%, the steepest decline over a three-year period since the end of the space race. we cannot sustain this downward trend and still expect to be at the cutting edge of scientific research and innovation. the office of science is responsible for supporting research that is too big for any single company or university to develop. our national labs are critical

research tools to academics and industry alike. for example, eli lilly conducts nearly half of its drug research at the advanced foe ton source at ar began. the department of science also home to the newest ventures, the innovation house, which seeks to discover and develop the next generation of energy sources and delivery systems. programs like the joint center for energy storage research, headquartered at ar gone, and the fuels from sunlight hub, remark -- headquartered at the institute of technology bring together multiple teams of researchers working to develop energy advancements that have the potential to transform energy systems. the office of science also invests in fusion, a safe, clean, and sustainable energy source that has the scientific potential to provide the u.s. with energy independence and a nearly limitless energy supply. though the -- through the office of science's biological and scientific research program we

was become world leaders in biofuels research. this is laying the foundation far revolution in biofuel production that will revolutionize our dependence on foreign oil. the investments of the d.o.e. office of science have supported research driven by intellectual curiosity alone, such as the discovery science at the forefront of high energy physic -- high energy and particle physics or astronomy or the physics of ultra cold atoms. these are led to new technology, including construction of accelerators that enable our ientists to discover new matter. but perhaps most pornly, it's supported the training of scientists, mathematicians and engineers for more than 50 years. we must continue to develop the next generation of american technical work force. as other world powers are

growing and challenging our position as a global lead for the science and innovation, we can't afford to let the number of american scientist and researchers or their quflte they research facilities diminish. funding scientific research and development results in one of the highest return on investments that our nation can make. it is essential that we continue to fully support funding for our national labs to preserve our global competitive advantage. i'd like to also discuss the offset which is the -- which is nasa's weapons -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. foster: i rise in strong support of my amendment and i appreciate -- i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. simpson: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i'm concerned that the amendment proposes to shift money from defense to nondefense

programs. defense is a critical priority. shifting between defense and nondefense allocations would have negative repercussions on the bill by triggering caps that trigger sequestration. i'd be happy to work with the gentleman in the event we have additional funding for the science program in conference. however, i must oppose the amendment as written and urge others to do the same. i reserve the balance of my time i'd be happy to yield. mr. foster: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment and appreciate your objections on the point of order. the chair: without objection the amendment is withdrawn. the gentleman from illinois, for what purpose does the rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, designated foster number two. the chair: the clerk will report

the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. foster of illinois, page 24, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $300,000, increased by $300,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from illinois and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. foster: i'm proud to offer this amendment on behalf of representative rush holt who is, even as we speak, being honored for his many years service to science, to congress and to the citizens of new jersey. our amendment transfers funds within the department of energy office of science account with the intent of restoring the national undergraduate fellowship program, sometimes referred to as nuf. the budget request would zero out funding for nuf while increasing funding for the student undergraduate internship pram program. our amendment would reallocate

the additional funding back to n.u.f. to allow the program to continue. the elimination of n.u.f. would reduce the slots available to those wishing to study plasma physics. the goal of it is to support a very specific work force need and an analysis of the numbers proves the program has been remarkably successful, particularly in encouraging female participation in the sciences. according to the data, collected by program administrators, since 2000, almost three quarters of undergraduate students who have participated in n.u.f. entered a doctoral program in physics or engineering, nearly half studied plasma physics or related fields. the program succeeded in encouraging women to study plasma physics. the academy of physics has a composition of 7% of women, yet 51% of women participating in

n.u.f. enter graduate programs. i restore the balance -- reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. . for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: claim time in opposition although i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection. mr. simpson: the amendment would restore funding for the national undergraduate fellowship program within the office of science which was . oposed for elimination i appreciate my colleague's passion for the general science education. he has worked tirelessly to support efforts that advance american research in this area. we have no issues with his amendment, would encourage its adoption by voice vote. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. foster: i thank chairman simpson and ranking member kaptur for their work on this bill and for their support of this amendment. before i yield, i'd like to read a section from a june 21, 2014, report by the fusion energy science advisory committee which assessed work

force development needs and the importance of a wide education pipeline. and i quote, a complete picture of the scientific work force must be understood in the context of the broader education pipeline. there are many reports that discuss the challenge of training highly qualified individuals in the so-called stem, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, fields. we believe that a robust work force for fusion energy sciences includes a wide pipeline that starts with pre-college activities and ends with strong employment opportunities. this pipeline should also tap into the full potential of the american pop us will with opportunities -- populous with opportunities to attract groups traditionally under-represented in stem fields. the adoption of our amendment today will help address this point in part. but we would also like to state our opposition to the department of energy's plan to remove pre-college science education activities from their mission portfolio. the department of energy labs provide world class facilities

where students and scientists conduct ground breaking research. these facilities should operate both as hubs of innovation and as research tools to engage students. when young students and teachers are able to directly engage with our national labs, it inspires an interest and a passion for science beyond what any taxbook or online resource could ever provide. both representive holt and i worked at a national lab for many years before coming to congress and we witnessed firsthand how a young student and student time spent among researchers and experiments can inspire a life-long interest in science. we fear that in limiting educational activities only to the education department, that we will further isolate the public from important scientific research that is being conducted in our national labs and we diminish science education in america overall. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 24, line 16, nuclear waste disposal, $150 million. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada seek recognition? ms. titus: i wish to call up amendment 15. the clerk: amendment 15 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. titus of nevada. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentlelady from nevada and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from nevada. ms. titus: thank you, mr. chairman. the legislation before us directs $150 million to be spent on, i quote, activities related to the nuclear waste policy act. for my constituents in southern nevada, we know that that's code for build the yucca mountain nuclear waste repository. after decades of losing time and over $15 billion squandered

on this boondoggle, the current administration rightly said, it's time for a new strategy. our colleagues in the senate understand this need to turn the page, which is why some senators introduced bipartisan legislation that creates a new system for the disposal of the nation's nuclear waste. unfortunately some in this body still believe that we should force nuclear waste created in their districts on a region that does not have a single nuclear power plant. when started decades ago as a law authorizing the study and selection of two geological depositories suitable for the permanent storage of spent nuclear fuel, this has now transformed into politics at its worst. with the passage of the screw nevada bill in 1987, which designated yucca mountain as the sole repository for the nation's nuclear waste, prior to completion of adequate scientific evaluation, the goals shifted from how to find

the best site for storage to how to force nevada to take on this waste. science and common sense be damned. as the years passed, billions of dollars were wasted and the misguided yucca project changed from being a geological depository to a manmade structure with barriers erected to attempt to mitigate the fault lines that run directly under the mountain, threatening the geohydrology of the area with radioactive waste. the original plan was ill-conceived and studies conducted over the past few decades clearly illustrate the dangers and costs associated with the project. unfortunately you can add passage of legislation to institute a new national nuclear waste policy to the growing list of issues that congress has now failed to address. in the absence of could he heernt policy, i offer this -- coherent policy, i offer this amendment today to use the

funding appropriated for carrying out the failed yucca mountain plan to reduce our deficit. instead of wasting tens of millions of dollars more on an unworkable solution, let's instead meet our obligations to future generations. at the same time let us commit to moving forward with a new policy to address the nation's nuclear waste. one that relies on a consent base system that does not force waste on communities like mine. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a clear message that this congress will not continue to go backwards, but will take serious action to address our nation's nuclear waste policy. i would now reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition -- seek recognition? mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i appreciate the gentlelady's passion with which she speaks about that. i understand it. but when she says the failed yucca mountain policy, i have

to remind you that yucca mountain is the law of the land. the policy of the yucca mountain has not failed. yucca mountain has not failed. what happened is that someone running for the presidency of the united states needed four electoral votes or five or however many it was in nevada, so they promised the citizens in nevada they would shut down yucca mountain. regardless of what the law said. regardless of what the law said. and that's what happened. so we can argue whether yucca mountain is the right place or not, we've done -- i think there's been 52 or 53 studies done on yucca mountain. it's the most studied piece of earth on this earth. we know more about it than anywhere else. and yet for political reasons we have stopped, and it will truly be a $15 billion waste if we don't proceed. and what we do in this bill is tell the administration to proceed with following the law. so i oppose the gentlelady's amendment and i would yield to

the gentleman from illinois who has been an advocate and an ardent supporter of this for many years here in congress, the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, the remainder of the time. mr. shimkus: i thank my colleague, and to my friends from nevada, i too understand their issues of concern. we look forward to working with them. the appropriations committee, you've done great work. in 1982, there's been two laws passed, the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 and the amendments offered in 1987. it's the law of the land. in fact, the federal courts have ruled in favor of the law of the land. that's why we're where we're at today. the gentlelady's amendment would say, take the money away for finishing the court-mandated scientific study. she even mentioned in her opening comments the scientific research. the federal courts have said, d.o.e., federal government, finish the scientific study. and remember hemmed -- and her

amendment would take that money away. we're going to find out through the scientific study that the nuclear regulatory commission is going to end up saying, this is the best place on the planet of the earth for long-term nuclear storage of waste. it's going to be safe for a million years. and that's going to come if we reject this amendment. but if we accept this amendment, it's their last chance to pull money away from finishing the court-mandated scientific study. that's what her amendment would do. so, look, i know my colleagues here, they don't believe that i'm all science-based, but on this case i am. we have an independent commission that's ready to finish their work and render a decision on whether yucca -- and all we're asking is, let us do it. if the nuclear regulatory commission says it's not safe, we're done. right, chairman?

but if they say it's safe for a million years, i think the folks from nevada are going to say, ok, let's work together to make this feasible, let's bring jobs and economic growth. you know, the state of nevada can't rely on gaming for economic growth and development. by closing the yucca mountain down, you've lost high-paying federal jobs in the scientific arena and for a state that has such a need for jobs and a diversification of economy, to reject this, it's really hard. but we're pledging right here, and the chairman's here also, that as this moves forward and we get a rendered decision that this location is safe, that we're going to work with the state of nevada to make sure the transportation location is safe, that the infrastructure is in place, that the jobs and economic growth in the economy occurs, and that's what we plan to do and i pledge here today being with ort to

the state of nevada in jobs and growth and development as a drers -- as they diversify their economy. yucca mountain's about 90 miles north -- northeast of las vegas -- miles northeast of las vegas. it's in the desert, it's underneath a mountain. and there's not a lot there. i've been there a couple of times. we're appreciative of the nuclear heritage of the state of nevada. he law is the law of the land. passed and signed into law. it's time that we not jettison the $15 billion and 30 years, let's finish the project. mr. chairman, thank you for what you've done. i think we'll get a chance to talk about this one more time on an additional amendment. i appreciate all you've done. we look forward to moving this process forward so not just our spent nuclear fuel but our defense waste has a long-term geologicals are powertory -- repository.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. titus: mr. chairman, i appreciate the gentleman's concern for the state of nevada and his -- and the economy and invite him to come back again and smend his money there. i also -- and spend his money there. i also appreciate his argument that this is the law of the land. the affordable care act is also the law of the land but that hasn't stopped the other side from trying over 50 times to change it. i would now yield the balance of my time to my colleague from nevada, mr. horsford. mr. horsford: thank you to the gentlelady for yielding and a -- and i come to the floor today to support the amendment offered by my colleague, congresswoman titus from district one, and as she has so eloquently indicated and as i stand here today as the representative who actually has yucca mountain in my district, first and foremost we should probably start pronouncing our state the way the people in our state pronounce it which is nevada, not nevada. we should start by recognizing

that the people of nevada hold dear to what's important to our state. i oppose efforts to fund the yucca mountain nuclear waste project. any avenues for the activation of this project should be blocked. potential funding for the storage of nuclear waste at yucca mountain should be put to better use, whether it is to reduce our deficit or fund other essential government programs. nuclear storage at yucca mountain is a failed and unworkable proposal. there are investments that we have made in yucca mountain already, as my colleague has said, some $15 billion, and we should find an appropriate alternative use for this site. but as it stands, this is a project that has been flawed from the start and it remains

flawed today. this isn't about one political party or another. our state has worked across the aisle for decades, from our governor, who is a republican -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. horsford: to others. so this is not a partisan issue. this is a states' rights issue and the people of nevada reject you storing your nuclear waste in our backyard. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. titus: mr. chairman, request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentlelady ask for a recorded vote? ms. titus: yes, i do the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from nevada will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 24, line 22, advanced research project agency, energy, $280 million. title 17, innovative technology

-- the chair: the clerk will ru spend. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. schiff of california, page 24, line 5, after the dollar amount insert increased by $20 million. page 26, line 24rk after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $20 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: my amendment would increase funding for the advanced research project energy agency for energy, otherwise known as arpa-e. the bill provides $280 million for arpa-e, $245 million less than the president's request. it also remits less than half the difference between the committee mark and the president's request, with the increase offset by a reduction

in the department administrative account. at the outset, i want to thank the chairman and ranking member of our subcommittee for the level funding provided to arpa-e this year, a substantial improvement over last year's house mark which cut the program by 80%. however, i think that rather than providing flat funding, we should be stepping up our commitment to potentially game-change regular search program and that's what my amendment does. this is a very modest investment for an agency whose work is helping to reshape our economy. while the amendment would leave us still short of where the funding should be and where it is in the president's budget, passing it would send a strong signal that there's bipartisan support for this kind of research. last year, i offered a similar amendment to restore funding to arpa-e in the fiscal year 2014 energy and water appropriations act which was adopted by a bipartisan majority in the house. it started in 2009 -- starting

in 2009, ar pa sembings ares. -- revolutionary program which recognizes high impact technologies that are too early for private sector investment. arpa-e projects have the potential to radically improve economic security, national security and environmental well being. arpa-e empowers america's researchers with funding, technical assistance and readiness. ar pa sembings modeled after the efense advanced research project, dar pa which produced ground breaking projecters in department of defense and the nation, most notably the internet itself. a key element is that managers are limited to fixed terms so new blood continuously revitalizes the research portfolio. as we cut spending to return the budget to balance, we must not weaken those programs that are vital to our economic future and national security and ar pa sembings just such an agency.

even if we can't make the investment that the president has called for in his budget let's make sure we don't hinder an agency that's pointing the way to a more energy secure future. energy is a national security issue, it's an economic imperative, it's a health concern and it's an environmental necessity. investing wisely in this type of research going on in ar pa sembings exactly the direction we should be going as a nation. we want to lead the energy revolution, we don't want to see this advantage go to china or anywhere else in the world. if we're serious about staying in the forefront of the energy revolution, we must continue to fully invest in the kind of cutting edge work that arpa-e represents. by providing the funding i'm recommending today, we'll send a clear signal of the seriousness of our intent to remain world leaders in energy. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. simpson: i rise today to reluctantly, and i do mean reluctantly, oppose the amendment. it would increase funding for arpa-e by $20 million using funds from the departmental administration as an offset. i share my colleague's support for advanced research. that's why the bill before us already provides $280 million for arpa-e. that's the highest funding level the agency has ever received in an annual appropriation equal to last year's. with all funding going to fully fund new projects over the next three years. put another way this bill funds arpa-e at $210 million more than last year's house will did. this is the highest level of funding arpa-e receive. in addition the bill fully funds arpa-e's to support the most promising new technologies out there however we still have to work within our overall budget allocation and we must abide by our allocation. though i'm simp at the toik

reducing the size of government we cannot support take $20 million from the departmental administration this would do more than just trim the fat beyond what is simply wasteful and ineffective, it would slash funding that would result in 143 people being laid off within the department of energy. these are job real impacts on families. therefore i must oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: i thank the chairman for his comments and appreciate his opposition. i appreciate his reluctance even more than his oppositionism know the chairman has a large fan company in his district, he's very proud of and justifiably so. those big fans need energy, mr. chairman. they need a good, efficient energy and ar pa sembings just the kind of -- and arpa-e is just the kind of agency to deliver that arpa-e as our own committee report notes supports research aimed at rapidly developing energy technology

whose development and commercialization is still too risky to attract sufficient private sector investment but are capable of significantly changing the energy sector to address our critical economic and energy security challenges. that's an excellent description of arpa-e. by providing robust fund, we can help this vital agency continue working on a wide range of programs that will benefit the united states both in the short-term and for many years to come. these programs include improvements in petroleum refining processes, heating and cooling technologies with exceptionally high efficiency and transportation fuel alternatives to greatly reduce our dependence on imported oil. my colleague need not be so reluctant. he can join in support of this amendment. again, it would basically split the difference between where the bill is now and what the president has asked for. it's a little less than the difference between the two. but our competitiveness in this

global economy where we have to compete with labor that costs a fraction of what american workers cost, depends on research and development. we don't want to get in a race to the bottom with the developing world on what we pay our workers. that means we have to remain most productive in the world. this is an agency that helps us do itism urbling support for the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. schiff: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed thonings amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postpone. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 25, line 4, title 17, innovative technology loan guarantee program. sum december rived from amounts received from borrowers pursuant to the energy policy act of 2005.

advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan program, $4 million, to remain available until september 30, 2016. clean coal technology, $6,600,000. partmental administration, $255,175,000 to remain available ntil september 30, 2016. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. i have an amendment at the desk. sorry. the chair: the clerk will reminority amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. kaptur of ohio. page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $1 million, increased by $1 million. the chair: without objection. pursuant to house resolution

641, the gentlelady from ohio and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: mr. chairman and members, i'm pleased to offer this amendment regarding additional resources for environmental justice on behalf of our esteemed colleague congresswoman sheila jackson lee, who had to return to texas this evening on very important official business. the amendment is on page 26 of the 60-page bill and it reprograms funding for the department of energy's departmental administration to increase support for environmental justice program act tiffities by $1 million offset by a reduction of like amount in funding for departmental corporate information technology program. the amendment increases funding for the department and the program is an essential tool in the department's effort to improve the lives of low income

and minority communities as well as the environment at large. 20 years ago, when president clinton issued executive order 12898 that directed federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high impacts on human health on low income and minority populations, america walked toward a new horizon and we began towns that a healthy environment sustains a productive and healthy community which fosters personal and economic growth. maintaining funds for environmental justice that go to historically black colleges and universities, minority serving institutions, tribal colleges and other organizations is imperative to protecting sustainability and growth of the community and environment. the funding of these programs is vital to ensuring that minority groups are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environment and the continued preservation of their home. it is amazing to go through some of these communities and

neighborhoods across our countried on to look at issues like lead-based paint or importantly dumps from prior decades that have been covered over but are leaching everything from low level raid y -- radioactive waste to toxic pollutant that was been buried there for years and people are living right next door, sometimes on top of, the these situations, it's unbelieve nble highway, it is amazing how many toxic sites have to be cleaned up and it's not the only place. if you look at maps across our country of ain tended environmental cleanups it is staggering and it's important to see who lives on top of or next door to these places. through education about the importance of environmental sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and how citizens could improve their own surroundings. america has to behave differently in 20 -- differently in 2014 than we did in 1900 or 1950 or 1980. funds that would be awarded to this important cause would

increase youth involvement in stem fields and promote clean energy, weatherization, cleanup and would provide protection to our most vulnerable groups. this program provides better access to technology for underserved communities and together the department of energy and agriculture have distributed over 5,000 computers to many of these low income populations. the community leaders institute is another vital component of the environmental justice program. it ensures those in leadership positions understand what is happening in their communities and can therefore make informed decisions. these programs have been expanded to better serve native americans and alaska natives, creating a prime example of how various other minority groups can be assisted as well. through community education efforts, teachers and students have also benefited by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management and other related subjects. the department of energy places interns and volunteers from

minority institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. and the department also works to increase low income and minority access to stem fields and helps students atain graduate dedegrees as well as find employment. since 2002, the tribal energy program has also funded 175 energy projects amounting to over $41.8 million to help tribes invest in renewable sources of energy. with the continuation of this kind of funding we can provide clean energy options to our most underserved communities and help improve their environment, yielding better health outcomes and greater public awareness. in fiscal year 2013, the environmental justice program was not funded for fiscal year 2014, we ask that money be appropriated for the continuation of this vital initialtive. we must help our low income and minority communities and ensure equality for those who are the most vulnerable. i ask our colleagues to join me and sport the kaptur amendment which is the jackson lee amendment to the improvement of

the environmental justice program. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. . the clerk will read. the clerk: page 27, line 18, office of the inspecter general, $42,120,000 to remain available until september 30, 2016. atomic energy defense activities, national nuclear security administration, eapons activities, $8,204,209,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. quigley of illinois. page 28, line 14, after the

dollar amount insert, reduced by $7,600,000. page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount insert, intreesed by $7,600,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from illinois and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. yigquig -- mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's time we take a smarter approach to our nuclear weapons strategy. i rise today to offer a reasonable amendment that would ensure the taxpayer dollars are not wasted on a weapon that the pentagon is not even sure will have the capability to use -- it will have the capability to use. my amendment simply cuts the extra $7.6 million above what the nnsa has requested for the next generation long range cruise missiles nuclear war head. this is a modest cut, one that allows the program to move forward at the requested level of $9.4 million. the reason behind the cut is clear. this funding is for the development of a war head to be

used on a cruise missile that the pentagon has yet to approve. given this, there is simply no reason for the nnsa to rush forward with investments on this war head. and congress definitely shouldn't be spending taxpayer dollars beyond the nnsa's request to do so. to get a better idea of what we're spending on our constituent -- our constituents' money on, let's walk through this program. this war head is being developed for the next generation -- generation long range cruise missile. the weapon it will replace, the air launch cruise missile, isn't being phased out until the 2030's. this year the pentagon delayed the development of this new cruise missile by three more years and has yet to set exact requirements for the missile or necessary war head. despite there being no rush, this bill pushes extra money into developing that war head. there are also serious questions about whether we will even need these new cruise missiles, given the

technological advances we've already made. the next generation long range bombers will be big, expensive stealth bombers able to penetrate air space to drop their bombs without being detected. we are spending a small fortune on the b-61 bomb life extension, for that advanced capability. the b-2 stealth bomber, which this next generation bomber will replace, doesn't carry a cruise missile. advanced american stealth bombers don't need the capabilities -- capability to send a cruise missile from a bomber 1,000 miles away. we pay for a very expensive submarine and very expensive stuff for that capability. so ask yourselves, should we be adding money above their request for a war head that goes on a missile that the pentagon doesn't even know it wants and one we probably don't even need? over the next few years, we'll be spending billions on our nuclear weapons budget alone. let me name a few of the things we need to pay for all at the

same time. the nnsa life extension program such as the increasingly costly b-61 program. 100 next generation long range bombers. icbm refurbishment and possibly the next generation of icbm's, plus 12 nuclear armed ohio class replacement submarines. at a time when we have so many other important projects at the pentagon and at the nnsa, the dollars and man power spent on this refurbishing for a cruise missile that does not yet exist are dollars and man power the pentagon and the nnsa could be using on bombers, subs and even soldiers. that's why i ask my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment, to take an important step toward a more reasonable, sensible nuclear weapon strategy. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. five minutes. mr. simpson: the bill provided $8.2 billion for nnsa's weapons

activities. the bill takes advantage of all opportunities to reduce funding for activities that are not essential to maintaining the stockpile while make sure the highest priority needs are met. assuring funding for modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is critical -- is a critical national security priority in this bill. this includes the full $17 million in the bill to initiate early studies for a cruise missile war head life extension program, $7.6 million above the budget request. the additional funding is a modest amount that will ensure an appropriate set of alternatives is being considered and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this and i would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. as chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee, i'm deeply familiar with our nuclear forces. in this case we are talking about the long range -- talking about the long range

standoff weapon which is the replacement for the existing air launch cruise missile. the fleet of existing outcomes are old and their reliability is declining. we have heard directly from the u.s. strategic command that they are well passed their service life and have military effectiveness concerns. projected adversary defense improvements will effect its effectiveness even more and this is a weapons system we're planning to sustain until 2030. we need to start development of the nuclear war head for this the next year, to meet 030 deployment date. i have a letter from the undersecretary of defense for acquisitions, technology and logistics stating, quote, the department of defense has established a military requirement for a nuclear-capable standoff cruise missile for the bomber league

of the u.s.tried a, closed quote. there's a clear u.s. military requirement for lrso, preserving long range cruise missile capabilities is a critical component of the u.s. strategic and extended de terrence strategies. graphicity bombs and conventional weapons cannot provide the same deterrence and defense effects. there is a clear national security imperative for lrso. i urge my colleagues strongly to vote no. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is -- does he have any time left? the gentleman is recognized. mr. quigley: i ask yield to the gentlewoman from ohio for 30 seconds. ms. kaptur: i rise to support the gentleman's amendment. it simply reduces the study for the long range standoff missile to the president's request. given the national security -- the nuclear security agency's dismal record on both life extension projects and construction projects, cost

overruns like we have never seen before, i think it's wise to take considered approach to any new system and new new study. i support the -- any new study. i support the amendment and urge my colleagues to follow me in this effort. support the quigley amendment. i yield back the time to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the nnsa has a tough enough job as it is developing nuclear weapons and handling and restoring the weapons that we already have. we have to make choices here. this is a weapon that won't be needed until the 2030's, if it is needed at all. they don't need additional money beyond that which is requested. i urge a yes vote. and i yield back. the chair: the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. quigley: recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 28, line 17, defense nuclear onproliferation,

$1,592,156,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? the clerk cl will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. fortenberry of nebraska. page 29, line 2, after the dollar amount insert, redulesed by $25 million. increased by $5 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from nebraska and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. mr. fortenberry: thank you, mr. chairman. first, i would like to commend chairman simpson and ranking member kaptur for bringing this bill to the floor. i'm a proud member of this subcommittee. their work is quite remarkable and it's one of the subcommittees that tries to achieve a harmonious balance of bipartisanship in a very difficult and divided environment. i want to thank you for that. mr. chairman, most americans may not realize even though

this is an energy and water bill, there are important components to our national security buried within this bill. there are nonproliferation regiment by which we helped secure fizzle materials and the technology that could potentially go with the nuclear weapons capability and it falling into the hasn'ts of the wrong people -- hands of the wrong people. this is very, very important work. now, my amendment seeks to move $25 million from the mixed oxide fuel program and move it into the defense nuclear nonproliferation accounts, such as the global threat reduction initiative and other similar accounts. the reason i'm offering this is i am very concerned about the future of the mix oxide, the mox, fuel program. so is the department of energy. so is the administration. so is our committee. everyone is very concerned about the potential viability of this program in which we've already spent $4 billion of

taxpayer money on. now, this bill currently calls for about $350 million to be spent. the judgment of the committee is that it is necessary to do this, to put it on what i call a ready standby phase. so that if the department of energy can come back to us and tell us that m-ox has some viability in the future, that we will be ready to move it forward without spending enormous new amounts of money versus what the administration is suggesting in terms of putting it into cold storage. if they determine it is viable, then we would have to spend a lot more to ramp it up. if it is not determined to be viable, then the cold storage route may have been the more prudent thing to do. which as i recall the administration wants to spend about $175 million, if i have that correct, on the mix oxide fuel plant. this causes a real dilemma for

me because, again, we've got a situation in which our other accounts in the nonproliferation area are coming down. so what it would seem to me prudent, if i was making this decision on my own, to actually move some money from an uncertain future on the mix oxide fuel regiment into the nonproliferation accounts such as the global threat reduction initiative. however, one more caveat. on our nonproliferation reduction initiatives, there is also some uncertainty as to whether or not the department of energy can absorb the capacity of new money. it's not clear on how we would apply that. so there is some significant dynamics here that i think lend itself to further consideration . now, i'm very grateful to the chairman in hearing me out, having heard these concerns when we were debating this on the committee, as well as the ranking member's sensitivity to these whole dynamics. i would simply ask, i'm going to withdraw this amendment, i would ask that as we are moving

forward, not in the next year, but in this next few weeks, as we complete these appropriations bills, that we urge the department of energy to give us some clarity about the real trajectory of the mix oxide fuel, the m on ox program -- m-on x program. and if we determine the future's not viable, we need to stop wasting money now. we need to pull it into other areas that make more sense, that are higher public goods, that help stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and theify sile materials that would go into them. this is not a simple policy debate, i get that. we're trying to make judgment calls with a lack of information here. but it seems to me that if you're prioritizing something, it's the nuclear nonproliferation initiatives and reframing that for the 21st century. it's time that we do that. the department of energy has suggested to us that they are ready to work hand in glove with us on thinking through a dynamic new robust policy for nonproliferation.

with that i'm going to -- i would hope that the chairman will give a cent to my request and continue to work aggressively with me on how we creatively construct this moving forward. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i appreciate the way in which the gentleman is addressing two very important issues. the committee has decided that the department hasn't yet told us what their option is if m-ox were to close down. we're asking for real cost estimates. there's differences of opinion about what the cost estimates for the life cycle of m-ox are. and so we've asked for further clarification. and as the gentleman rightly ated, if we put it in cold standby, and the decision is to proceed with m-ox from the department, it's going to cost us much more to bring it back up. which is why we have chosen the path that we've chosen. and the gentleman is also

correct that i'm supportive and i think my ranking member is also. in fact i think most of the members on our subcommittee, nonproliferation is a very important issue. the question is, can the committee or can the department spend $25 million more and what will we get for that? and i want to work with you to make sure that we're doing the right thing and the intelligent thing in both arenas. so i appreciate the attitude that the gentleman is displaying in this and i know there are a couple of individuals who would like to speak for a moment so i'd yield to the gentleman from south carolina for a minute and a half. mr. wilson: thank you for your leadership in bringing this bill before us today and i appreciate the congressman from nebraska and his interest in the global threat, reduction initiative. it's very worthy. but i want to point out i'm very grateful