hardly surprised by the conclusion, but the report served to undermine all of the claims that the supporters of the united states enrichment corporation have made about the national importance of the american centrifuge project facility. now the government accountability office is scheduled to release its second report late they are summer. which concerns the claims that the united states enrichment corporation is necessary for national security. it is clear however from the first g.a.o. report that the department of energy's actions have been taken in direct contradiction to federal law. this must stop. any further taxpayer money placed in this direction is sure to be wasted. the department of energy's track record of giving money to bankrupt companies is abysmal. the house today has a chance to stand up for the american taxpayer, revamp -- prevent further funding from being provided to companies that simply cannot deliver.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. does the gentleman from idaho continue to reserve a point of order? mr. simpson: i continue to reserve the point of order. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve. does any member seek time in pposition to the amendment? the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i must insist on my point of order. i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing the existing law, the amendment requires a new determination. i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i would merely point out that we have had this discussion on the energy and water appropriations bill year in and year out on this issue. the fact of the matter is, the

department of energy wasted money when it came to solyndra. we should not support the additional wasting of money simply because it is nuclear energy that is involved at this point. realistically, this should have been stopped last year or the year before. the fact that it has not been topped is not something that we as republicans can continue to justify. this activity needs to cease, to defeat this measure on a technicality is the wrong approach and i would encourage the chair to allow this amendment to come forward to a floor vote. i believe it would be supported by the members. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. does any other member wish to be recognized on the point of order? if not, the chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a determination of whether certain entities have commenced bankruptcy cases. the amendment therefore

constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read the amendment. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. grayson of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: thank you, madam chair. this amendment is identical to other amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every appropriations bill that's been considered under an open rule during this congress. it's also identical to the amendment that i offered, it's last year's energy and water appropriations bill, which passed by a voice vote. my amendment expands the list of parties with whom the federal government is prohibited from contracting due to serious misconduct on the

part of those contractors. it's my oath that this amendment remains uncontroversial as it has been and again will be passed unanimously by the house. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman -- mr. grayson: yes. mr. simpson: we're happy to accept this amendment. mr. grayson: thank you very much. 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 florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk -- would the gentleman specify which amendment? >> number 1. the chair: number 1. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lamalfa of california.

at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to regulate activities identified in subparagraphs a and c of section 404-f-1 of the federal water pollution control act, crn-c or , 1344-f-1-a to limit the exemption in section 404-f-1-a of the water pollution control act, 33, u.s.c., 1334-f-1-a to established or ongoing operations. the chair: the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you, madam chairman. we've heard quite a bit about the e.p.a. and army corps of engineers, their overreach regarding waters of the united states. in a preview of how little regard these entities have of congress and the law, they've already drastically overstepped their limits.

congress having placed on their power. section 404-f of the clean water act explicitly exempts certain activities from regulation, including normal agricultural activities like plowing fields, planting and harvesting crops and maintaining irrigation and drainage ditches. congress made these exemptions clear when the act was passed. unfortunately the e.p.a. and army corps are, as usual, using creative interpretations of the law in an effort to regulate activities that are currently exempt from their control. we've seen federal agencies go after farmers simply for changing crops or improving their irrigation systems with absolutely no authority to do so. the exemption on activities in section 404-f-1 of the clean water act reads as follows. normal farming, agriculture and ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting and water conservation practices is

not prohibited or otherwise subject to regulation. madam chair, this is clear as it can be. these activities are exempt from regulation, however according to the corps, permitting guidance to farmers and ranchers who are qualified, these exempt activities must be a part of an established ongoing farming, civil culture or ranching operation. an operation is no longer established when the area on hich it was conducted has been moved to another use or lay idle. in the army corps' own words, if the current use of property is for growing corn, the exemption does not apply for future activities involve conversion to orchards or vineyards. no where in the law does a requirement that farmwork be ongoing or established, nowhere does that exist. nowhere in the law is a prohibition on changing crops mentioned. my amendment simply directs the corps to follow the law as

congress has written, to stop attempting to expand its reach based on fictional authority. this house unanimously passed similar language to rein in the corps last year. let us remind these agencies that we write the law, not unphone federal bureaucrats and the law applies not just to average americans but to the federal government as well. i yield. the chair: does the gentleman reserves the balance of his time? the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. moran: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam chairwoman. i rise in opposition to this amendment because it is not else in. it does not achieve the stated intent. contrary to a lot of misinformation and much of it deliberate, i'm afraid, that has been circulated, farmers do not need a corps of engineers or even an e.p.a. permit to dig

a ditch, to till a field, to create a reservoir, to irrigate their fields. congress collarified this issue more than 35 years ago when it passed the 1977 amendments to the clean water act. those amendments established a well-reasoned and practical approach that ensured far-reaching protections over the nation's waters but also ensured that practical day-to-day operations of farmers, of ranchers, foresters, a host of other industrial sectors, could continue without the need for clean water act regulation. section 404-f of the 77 law -- 1977 law created a list of activity-based exemptions for normal farming, ranching and forestry activities. but it also included safeguards to ensure that these exempted activities were not exploited by large scale commercial interests. i'd also like to register my

strong opposition to other attacks against the clean water act that are already a part of this bill and i refer specifically to section 105 and 106. section 105 blocks the corps of engineers from updating regulations pertaining to the definitions of fill material for the purpose of the clean water act. section 106 prevents the corps from finalizing its proposed regulation clarifying federal jurisdiction. section 105 protects the work of some attorneys in the george w. bush administration who found a clever way to allow mining waste to be dumped into rivers and streams without a rigorous environmental review process. they simply changed the definition of fill material to include rock and sand and soil and clay and plastics and construction debris and wood chips and overburden from mining and other excavation activities.

hat's all in quotes. what had once been a permit process intended to -- what was that? what was that all about? you weren't gaveling me? quiet there. ok. right. so, the point -- a little disconcerting. what had once been a permit process intended to allow quick approval of construction projects like bridges and roads, we're raising the bottom elevation of a water body or converting an area to dry land was unavoidable. it became a green light for mountain top mining removal, where an entire mountain top could be dumped into a stream valley and since this clever change in definition occurred, more than 2,000 miles of streams have been buried under mining waste. the environmental and health consequences have been shocking. people living near mountain top removed mines are 50% more likely to die of cancer, 42% more likely to be born with birth defects, compared with

other people in appalachia. section 106 is another outrage that's been facilitated by interest groups with distributely misleading statements. the corps does need to clarify its authority because there's a lot of confusion as a result of two supreme court rulings. the proposed rule clarifies that. most seasonal and rain dependent streams are protected. wetlands near rivers and streams are protected. but other types of waters will be evaluated through a case-specific analysis. that makes sense. the corps' eng couraged recommendations from the -- encouraged recommendations from the public on how to determine if a water body has connections to down stream waters. 50% of all stream miles in the lower 48 states fall into the category of intermittent. they only exist for part of the year. yet they receive 40% of all

individual wastewater discharges. more than 117 million americans get some of their drinking water from those streams that don't flow year-round. so including this rider to block the corps' rule, will only ensure that the confusion continues, that these sources of drinking water remain at increased risk of pollution. with rising temperatures, more severe droughts and climate change, protection of our waters and wetlands are more important than ever. we need clarity, not more confusion and this amendment generates more confusion and so it should be opposed. thank you, madam chairwoman. i reserve the balance of my time. if there is any. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: thank you again, madam chairwoman. how much time do i have remaining? the chair: you have 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. lamalfa: thank you. i appreciate the comments and thoughts of my colleague from virginia there and didn't mean to startle with the podium here. these podiums and microphones aren't set for the right height for some of us around here.

, at said, on this amendment not the catch-all on the whole bill here, we are sticking to the exemptions that have been provided for in the law by congress for farming activities. and we do have the need for this amendment because the enforcement by army corps is happening out in the field. in my own district even on these issues. and we have a screen shot right here from the army corps' website that lists some of the things i mentioned earlier. as i said, these activities must be part of an ongoing operation or there cannot be a crop change without requirements put forth by the army corps, them giving you permission or denying that permission. so it is indeed necessary because there's overzealous regulation and enforcement of something that doesn't exist in the law, as passed duly by the congress, representing the

people of the united states. and as i mentioned a bit earlier, once again, this house did unanimously pass similar language on this issue last year. so, i would ask to have that support of the u.s. house once again, to simply allow farmers to do what they would be doing, ongoing, and planning to do and have done for many generations all over this country except for a reinterpretation by in a lot of cases out-of-control bureaucrats that have a different agenda. so, madam chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. 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 ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6

of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seeng reck -- seek recognition? the clerk will report the amendment. the gentleman will specify which amendment. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, a, of the funds made available by title 3 under the heading atomic energy defense activities, national nuclear security administration, defense nuclear nonproliferation, not later than 0 days after the date -- the chair: is there objection? without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserves.

housent to -- pursuant to resolution 641, the gentleman from california, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you, madam chair. during the 1950's and 1960's, we were engaged in what we know as the cold war. we could not build nuclear weapons fast enough and we surely built a lot of them. beginning in the 1980's, and then on into the 1990's, we got a little more sane. we and russia and others became somewhat more sane about what to do with our nuclear weapons and we began to dismantle many of the nuclear weapons that we had, as did russia. in the 1990's, an agreement was reached between the united states and russia on the disposition, that is the ultimate disposition and disposal of the unused,

unnecessary plutonium that both russia and the united states held in their various stockpiles. good thing. you don't want this stuff lying around, don't want people to get their hands on it, particularly terrorist organizations. so there was a common understanding between russia and the united states on the disposal of this unused, unnecessary, and extraordinarily dangerous material. the united states undertook to do this in a facility in south carolina known as the mox facility and we've been at it since the early 1990's, late 1990's, putting together a facility. it hasn't gone well. in fact, it's gone very, very badly. in the recent last two or three year the administration has decided that this is not going to work and the facility as designed should be put in cold storage. and a new way and a new way of dealing with this issue. this amendment would instruct the department of energy to

undertake a very quick and in my view a very appropriate process of going out to those entities, businesses, and others around this nation that can find a way of disposing of this very dangerous plutonium and do it quickly. it calls for a six-month process in which the department of energy would ask for request for proposals from qualified companies to dispose of this, including the company that presently does it, ariba a french company that's currently operating the facility, have them come forward with a redo of their proposal, can they do it, and perhaps other companies, i know of two that perhaps could come forward. get this thing under way so we can once again carry out our agreement in a treaty with russia to dispose of our plutonium material this does not

negate the south carolina facility. in fact, it would hold the south carolina facility in place and probably lead to the continuation of that facility, perhaps in a new mombings dality to dispose of the plue -- in a new modality, to dispose of the plutonium. it short circuits the time in which the department of energy is already moving to do this. under their present proposal, i would suggest it would be a decades before they decide what to do. but they need a kick in the pant which this amendment does, get out there, go to the companies that know how to do this, and get it done. it's in the interests of the united states and the interest of russia to dispose of this unnecessary, unused plutonium. if we don't move forward this way, we're looking at a decade, in myest mation, a decade before the department -- in my

estimation a decade before the department is ready to make a decision. i suspect i'll get a point of order here but i would like us to consider not doing this. if we don't take program such as i'm proposing here, we're going to wind up this this -- with this thing lingering out there, a huge fight with south carolina saying we want to go forward with the arriba, arriba is not working, on and on. i ask for an aye vote on the amendment and a foregoing of this point of order so we might as a house of representatives take up this important issue. the chair: does the gentleman from california reserve? mr. garamendi: i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: madam chairwoman, i insist on my point of order. madam chairwoman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent

part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be ined or fer changing existing law. the amendment imposes additional dutiesism ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member seek recognition on the point of order? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: i guess i don't understand the suggested ruling. we're spending a pile of money here, we're going to spend some $12 billion on the path we're on, the bill itself proposes to spend money to keep this project going. the administration says we can't do it, it's not working, don't do it. all my amendment does is to tell the department of energy, get on with what you need to do anyway. that is, figure out how to do this. doesn't spend any more money. in fact, it will spend a whole lot less money than in the

present drafting of this legislation. and it doesn't change the law at all. all it does is direct, it directs the department of mortgage do something. and it specifies how it should be done. that doesn't change law -- well, this whole thing is a law, i guess. the bill itself changes law. so this simply direct house they would carry out their action for which they already have money. fine, avoid the issue, let this thing linger, let it fester, let it rot, and do nothing and wait 10 years with this plutonium there while the department of energy does what it does best which is to contemplate the future rather than getting things done. now we'll take up the point of order and this amendment will fail on a point of order. i would suggest to anybody that cares to listen this has to be dealt with. this issue has to be dealt with. this doesn't -- this amendment

does not select a winner or loser. and it doesn't change the fundamental, underlying law that we have put in place. with that, i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does anyone else seek recognition on the point of order? the chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the secretary of energy, the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2, rule 21, the point of order is sustain and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. la mall in a of california. at the -- mr. lamalfa of california.

at the end of the section, none of the funds made available in this act may be use bird the bureau of reclamation to terminate or enforce the termination of the sacramento river settlement contract before the resolution of natural vs. rces defense council joel, circuit case -- ninth circuit case 09661, california 05-cv-01207-lj0-csa, through dismissal or settlement. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i reserve a point of order against this amendment. the chair: without objection, the point of order is reserved. the -- 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. lamalfa: madam chair, language in this amendment will hold the sacramento river settlement contracts in place until issues associated with the litigation or renewable contracts are settled. maintaining these contracts is critically important to the effective operation of the central valley project and efficient delivery of water north and south of the dell theasm settlement contracts are foundational to the c.v.p. and benefits the bureau of reclamation, municipal and industrial water users, the environment, state water projects and its beneficiaries. the language does not prejudice ongoing litigation. it ensures stability until such issues are resolve the settlement contracts originally entered into by the bureau in 1964 and renewed in 2005 allow the united states to properly

distribute the sacramento river water rights and provide operational stability for the c.v.p. without these contracts in place and full compliance with their term the underlying right to divert watter from the sacramento river will be called into question, po enten -- potentially creating instability statewide. they will continue to divert water under his toirk rights but will do so earlier in the year. in addition, they would not be required to compensate the united states for any of the water they defer. this would cost treasurely approximately $12 million in lost revenue. moreover, the contractors would no long behr obligated to schedule their water diversions with the u.s. this would result in an inability to operate the c.d.p. in an efficient manner, causing uncertainty and instability throughout the central valley project and the state water project which serve a combined 23 million people. finally, the contract supplies available under existing contracts were assumed in all base and future studies used in the u.s. fish and wildlife

survey biologic opinion pertaining to the delta smelt. the ninth circuit confirmed the validity of it as urged by the u.s. and nrdc. accordingly, continuing the contracts under existing terms pending the final outcome of the nrdc vs. jewel litigation would have no adverse effect on delta smelt. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does the gentlelady continue to reserve her point of order? ms. kaptur: i continue to reserve my point of order. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam chair irk rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i have great respect for my friend from the sacramento valley and the users he represents but i must rise in opposition to this amendment. however well-intentioned, it has two fatal flaws. the first is that it is completely unnecessary.

second, it interferes with the federal court's ability to rule. mr. huffman: the court of appeals ruled in favor of plaintiffs because the long-term sacramento river contracts were signed based on an invalidated opinion. no party in this ongoing litigation is seeking to terminate water delivery, nor is anybody asking for the immediate alteration or interruption of deliveries. the litigation has been going on for years and my understanding is that there's no court action scheduled that could have any effect on water deliveries in the coming year. if the contracts are ultimately changed to protect california's salmon fishery that would be many years down the line and the sacramento river contractors will have the opportunity to negotiate changes directly with the interior department in a public process. that's how it works. so this amendment puts it in -- puts nuss a strange position of

trying to bar the bureau of reclamation from terminating water deliveries nobody has asked them to terminate in anticipation of a court order nobody is seeking. it's completely unnecessary. now second, this amendment interferes in a court case in a way that should worry all of us in this body. the amendment claims to be about preserving the status quo on the sacramento river. that's all fine. but if that's the concern, that contracts might be terminated even though nobody is asking for them to be terminated and they don't expire for another 30 years, why come to kuok? the sacramento river contractor -- why come to congress? the sacramento river contractors are represented by astute and capable lawyers who could go to court and seek interim relief to do this, yet they have not sought that relief. instead, they have come to the house floor, asking to be treated differently than every other central valley contractor. seeking a rider to circumvent a court case still in its preliminary stages is no way to

make public policy. i'm not aware of congress ever taking an extraordinary step like this there have been many endangered species act challenges to water contracts over the years in california. never has a court simply vacated any contracts. in fact, courts have always given, even after finding the contracts invalid, under the endangered species act, the courts have given the agencies and contractors time to do their work and renegotiate the terms without terminating anything in the interim. that's exactly what will happen in this case if we simply let the litigation play out as we should. madam chair, i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from contracosta county, who has been such a lead own california water in his 40 years in the house of representatives, mr. miller. . mr. miller: in opposition, i think the gentleman from california has made the point very clearly. this amendment is seeking to play by a set of rules that is

different than any other contractor in the state. and also makes the point very clearly that there is no intent here by any of the parties to curtail these contracts in any immediate time or suggest that they be abandoned or they be found invalid, not at all. it's just a question of whether or not the basis on which they were determined to go forward, that biological opinion has turned out not to be valid. and so they're simply asking for a rereview of these contracts. but what this amendment would say is this group of contractors gets to play by a different set of rules than everybody else in the state. as we all know, those of us who are from california, and many of our colleagues from california have learned over the years, this is a very, very integrated system. it's a very complex system, and it has multiple claims on the water in the state. from farming, from technology, from communities, from manufacturing, from the

chemical industry and from the environment, from recreational fishers, from commercial fishers, from an industry that's hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of employees. and the question is, are these contracts valid in light of the biological opinions? to say they've been assumed in the biological opinions does not say they've been reviewed. so this is just a question -- to this legislation is whether these people can take themselves outside of the judicial review, take them outside of the environmental consideration, take themselves outside of the economic considerations that no other water district, no other contractor gets to do and certainly in a time when people are under such stress about the availability of water, it starts to look like a very special privilege to be able to be plucked out when everybody else is undergoing this kind of scrutiny, trying to figure out how we can make the most flexible system, to this diverse california economy, to

domestic households in a very serious drought and a drought that may continue in the years to come. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. miller: nobody has suggested we abrogate these contracts and simply proceed under regular order. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman. the chair: does the gentlewoman still reserve a point of order? ms. kaptur: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: i want to yield two minutes to the man from the bay area, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: i want to thank my colleagues on both sides of this question. i think it would be wise to take a look at the language of the amendment. it basically says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the bureau to terminate, to implement or administer or enforce the termination.

this is about the bureau terminating. it simply says the bureau cannot terminate the contract until this court case is settled. is it necessary? really depends what the bureau intends to do, but i would suspect that the bureau probably would not move to terminate but they could. in which case chaos ensues. there will be a settlement in this court case sometime in the future. we don't know when. it's a very complex case. logical, it h bi deals with the d.s.a. and complex biological circumstances of fish in the delta. this amendment says the bureau cannot terminate until the court case has been settled. that's it. is it necessary? well, it could be necessary and, therefore, this simply puts in place a requirement in the ld avoid chaos

central valley project. that's it. and with that i would yield back -- well, before i yield back, my colleagues with -- ally whom i stand by stand side by side, i rise in support of this amendment. therefore, i support the amendment. i yield back my time to my colleague. the chair: the gentleman from alifornia is recognized. mr. lamalfa: how much time do i have? the chair: you have 45 seconds. --malfa: i thank the gentleman. the stability that is so desperately needed for water delivery to the whole project is why we're doing this. it will have affect for one

year or until the case is settled. so these are ongoing contracts. we're not changing anything. it's not moving in any new direction here. but the instability that can be caused by impending ruling or maybe a change of mind by the bureau of reclamation would cause much chaos, as my friend had suggested. so this isn't an unreasonable amendment to add to maintain the stability we need for an additional year. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentlelady from ohio continue to reserve? ms. kaptur: yes, madam chair. i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, and i quote, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law. the amendment imposes additional duties by requiring

the bureau to determine whether a decision constitutes a resolution. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member seek recognition on the point of order? mr. lamalfa: madam chairman. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: i'd like the ruling in opposition to that. what we're talking about here does not change law. it changes nothing other than maintaining the direction we have. it's not requiring any action by the bureau or department of interior or any other government agency nor prejudicing anything by the court. simply keeping what we have in place in the contracts and the stability that is needed. so i think the point of order is invalid with what the intention of this amendment is. the chair: does any other member seek recognition on the point of order? the chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination as to what constitutes

resolution of a particular court case through decision. the amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman will designate the amendment? >> it is amendment regarding water conservation and water management to allocate funding to the bureau of reclamation for title 16. the chair: the gentleman will please submit your amendment to the desk.

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. huffman of california. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section. for an additional amount of programs, projects and activities of the bureau of reclamation authorized under the reclamation waste water and groundwater study facilities ct, title 16 of public law 102-573 40 u.s.c. 398, it is therefore appropriated an amount by this act for department of energy, energy programs, nuclear energy. it's hereby -- is hereby reduced by $52 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 621, the gentleman from california and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. mr. huffman: thank you, madam chair. california and the rest of the west are facing a historic drought right now. nearly 80% of california was under extreme drought conditions in june and 36% of our state is in exceptional

drought in that category, the highest category, in fact, on the u.s. drought monitor. emergency conservation plans are being adopted across the state, including many mandatory measures. cities and counties are dealing with uncertain water supplies, farmers and ranchers are facing incredibly difficult decisions and tribes and those who depend on healthy fisheries for their livelihoods are seeing shortages like they've never seen. congress can't make it rain. what we can do is invest in drought-resistant water supplies through smart, sustainable investments in con -- conservation and reuse. my amendment directs $52 to the bureau of reclamation for title 16 -- $252 million to the bureau of reclamation. through this program, reclamation works across the west to support municipalities, farmers, fish and wildlife and recreation through water-saving conservation, reuse and recycling water infrastructure projects. although the energy and water

bill before us today does fund the program, this drought is showing us that we have to do a lot more. california's state water board is stepping up. they made an $800 million investment in water reuse projects earlier this year, but we on the federal side should be able to add more to that. we should add $52 million to combat this urgent problem in california and other western states. this amendment is offset through a reduction in the department of energy's nuclear energy account. we have tough choices to make. i think we all understand that. responding, however, to this drought should be a national priority. and so i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: claim time in opposition to the amendment. madam chairman, i oppose this ill-conceived amendment. this would cut $52 million out of the nuclear energy program. this is on top of an amendment

that was adopted yesterday that already cuts $73 million out of the nuclear energy program. what i've heard for two days is now that climate change is a big issue. and in fact the drought in california and the west has been blamed on climate change. it may be true. i don't know. but if you believe that, then why you attacking the one thing that can produce energy for this country in a carbon-freeway? that makes no sense. so i strongly oppose this amendment. as i said, i understand my colleague's support for the title 16 program and due to the request from gentleman and many others within this congress, funding for title 16 program is basically at current rate while many other programs have been cut. we did this by balancing many priorities that the amendment would completely ignore. the amendment would cut, as i said, $52 million from nuclear energy. this is a 6% cut on top of the amendment yesterday. accepting this amendment would be a 14% cut in nuclear energy.

again, if you really believe in climate change and that we have to address it, one of the major things that's going to address it is going to be nuclear energy. while i like wind and solar and all of those kind of things, they don't produce the energy in the base load, particularly in california. as i said, this is an ill conceived -- ill-conceived amendment. funding for nuclear research and development is a critical part of this recommendation's support for a balanced energy portfolio, american manufacturing and reduced reliance on foreign energy sources. nuclear power currently generates 20% of the nation's electricity, and it will continue to play a role in the future, i hope. nuclear energy will be part of the energy mix in the future. america invented nuclear power, but now other nations are mimicking our company's designs and building them entirely within their own borders. this amendment is bad policy,

and i strongly oppose this. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, madam chair. we either believe that this critical drought in california and other western states, the most extreme drought that many of us have seen in our lifetime, we either believe it's a national crisis and a national priority or we don't. a few months ago house republicans put forward a bill that represented itself as a response to this drought, and yet it offered no immediate relief to the folks who are suffering in california. instead what it did was hack away at environmental laws, try to reduce violence of hundred years of deference and otherwise pick winners and losers in ways that was not responsive to this drought. what this amendment offers, though, is something that can make an immediate difference. the water we save through conservation, the water we can save in years ahead through water recycling is some of the

most cost-effective water you can provide. it's one of the smartest investments you can make in a state like california. we need it to respond to this drought and we need it to make on future eliant droughts. i ask my colleagues to vote yes on this important amendment which does respond to the critical drought that's facing california and other western states. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. . 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 and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, designated amendment number 61. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. luetkemeyer of missouri. none of the funds made available for this eakt may be used for the missouri river act of the energy and water development and related agencies appropriation act division c of public law 111-8. the chair: the gentleman from missouri and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: just turn on the news and see reports that highlight the need of a flood protection system as people along the river are bracing for potential flooding. they have faced major challenges due to extreme flooding and droughts. this devastation combined with the sluggish economy and our aging infrastructure means now more than ever we must be focused and responsible with taxpayer-funded river projects. my amendment would prohibit

funding. $25 million earmark study comes on the heels of $35 million 17-year study that showed the purposes are important and should be maintained. this congress and this administration need to focus on protecting human life and property by maintaining the soundness of our levees and the commercial advantages. the missouri river moves goods to market and important tool to both domestic and international trade. that's why the american waterways operators, the coalition to protect missouri river, missouri corn growers support this amendment. this amendment puts in jeopardy the missouri river and the flow of the mississippi river, which could have devastating consequences for navigation and transportation, resulting in barriers for our waterways

operators, agriculture and every product that depends on the rivers to get to market. the current thoshesed uses provide necessary resources and translate to continued economic stability not only for the people of missouri but also for many americans living nearby. this study is wasteful of taxpayer dollars and this exact issue we have spent 17 years and $35 million on hundreds of meetings and extensive litigation. i offered identical language on the first debate on the 2011 continuing resolution and the amendment passed. it was passed in 2012. and e of 242-168 in 2013 again by voice vote in last year's debate. i would like support again. there is no doubt in my mind the

water resources receive too little funding. it is time to create safer more efficient infrastructure for our inland waterways and stop spending taxpayer dollars unnecessarily. i reserve. the chair: does any member seek time in opposition? the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: 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 missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 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 gentleman will indicate which amendment. mr. garamendi: 103. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. garamendi of california. the clerk: section 508, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to use an export application from a facility that may be supplied with or export liquified natural gas or export liquified natural gas on american flag vessels is pending. the chair: pursuant -- the gentleman from idaho, what purpose do you seek recognition? mr. simpson: i reserve a point of order. 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. garamendi: thank you, madam chair. i would hope my colleague from idaho finishing the excellent explanation i have of this would

withdraw his point of order. this is about an extraordinary opportunity that the united states has. we have been blessed with a very significant supply of natural gas. we have the technology to obtain that gas and we also are now looking at the possibility or the reality of exporting that natural gas in the liquified natural gas form, a facility is already licensed and is in process of being nearing construction on the texas coast. this amendment would actually replicate what was passed by the house of representatives in 2006, became law with president george w. bush's signature that basically said that if we are going to import natural gas, it must be imported on an an american-flagged ship. we will soon be exporting

liquified natural gas and this is the only step available to me n this forum to replicate what we did in 2006. and that is to require that natural gas be import d. now we would at least take a step towards making sure that natural gas is exported on american-flagged ships. this is a big deal for the maritime industry of america. this is a big, big deal because we fail to take steps along the way to secure the maritime industry, we will see it disappear. we have the jones act, and that's good. but the jones act has only held the very minimum, 82 ships now. 40 years ago, we had 1,000 ships operating under the american

flag with american sailors and mariners. if we allow this amendment to go in place, it would simply require that the department of energy put in front of other applications those applications that have utilized american-flagged ships in the export of their liquified natural gas. sounds to me to be the right thing to do if you care about america. now if you don't give a hoot about american sailors and american ships and the american maritime industry, then brush this aside with the point of order. idaho isn't on the coast, but idaho cares deeply, deeply about the export of american grain on american ships for programs such as food for peace and the jones act.

this amendment would begin to secure the american maritime industry by simply saying to the department of energy, if you are going to approve an l.n.g. export facility, then put first in line that export facility that is going to utilize american sailors, american crews and american ships. if you care about this nation's maritime industry, then you ought to be supporting this amendment. and my next one, which goes in the same direction. so i would ask my colleague from idaho, who controls this debate at this moment, to put aside his point of order and allow the house of representatives to have a vote on whether they care all 435 of us, whether they care about the american maritime

industry and this one little step in providing an opportunity for american-made ships, american sailors, american crews and the american maritime industry to survive in a very hostile environment, where other countries, china and others subsidize their maritime industry and have decimated the american maritime industry. let's support americans. let's support our industry. let's have this amendment come to a vote on the floor and see if we stand with the american ship building council and the navy league and others who do support this. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition to the amendment.

the chair: the alreserve his point of order? mr. simpson: i reserve my point of order and claim time in opposition. i don't usually do that, but since he challenged me directly, let me see if i have got this straight. we have a law that says if you are going to export -- if you are going to import natural gas, it has to be on an american-flagged ship. and we want to put in a law if you export natural gas it has to be on an american ship. if every country adopted a law like this, we could neither import or export natural gas around this world. while this might be a good law seemingly, i don't see how it would actually be beneficial. so, you know, the gentleman always has thoughtful amendments, which always seem to be out of order.

so madam chairwoman, i make a point of order because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 1. the rule states it shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment requice a new determination. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any member seek recognition on the point of order? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: my colleague from idaho correctly asked me a question, how does this work. would this, in fact, stop the export of l.n.g.? no. it absolutely would not. other countries who want the l.n.g. may or may not operate ships. the fact matter is it's going to take hundreds of ships to export this natural gas. the reality is that this

i will t simply says -- take your add monday is. how much time do i have? the chair: the debate is not timed. we'll keep the remarks to the merit of the point of order. mr. garamendi: did the chair woman is unlimited as long as i speak to the subject? the chair: it's within the discretion of the chair. the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: i yield back. we'll come back to this in a proper way. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds this amendment requires language requiring a new determination requiring the flag status of vessels. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the

desk. amendment number 62. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to continue the study conducted by the army corps of engineers pursuant to section 5018 hafe a 1 of the water resources development act of 2007, public law 110-114. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from missouri and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. >> should the basin received a few more inches of runoffs, homes, farms and businesses would be inundated with devastating floodwaters. while it appears that the danger subsided for now, these citizens are not in the clear and will repair prepared for the rest of the flood season.

mr. luetkemeyer: this is maintaining flood infrastructure. known as one of our region's greatest resources, the missouri river would produce extreme erosive regular flooding and would be mostly unfit for navigation if not for the aggressive long-term management of the army corps of engineers. congress authorized the missouri bank stabilization and navigation project in 1912 with the intention of mitigating flood risk and maintaining a navigable channel from sioux corps' a, and the ability to make adjustments as needed remains crucial until this day. president obama in his fiscal year 2015 budget requested $56 million for the missouri river recovery program which primarily goes towards the funding of environmental restoration projects and studies. this funding dwarfs the insufficient $8.5 million that was requested for the entire

operations and maintenance of the aforementioned bsnp. it's preposterous to think that this is more important than the protection of human life. and taking for granted the ecosystems. i grew up near the missouri river. yet, we come to the point where we value fish and birds over the welfare of our fellow human beings. our parties are backwards, madam chair. my amendment would reinstate a study that has become a little more than a tool of the environmentalists of returning to the river to the most natural state with little regard for the flood control, navigation, trade, power generation or the people who depend on the missouri river for their livelihoods. the study will in no way eopardize of endangering the endangered species act. 70 environmental and ecological studies focused on the missouri

river. the people who have had to foot the bill for these studies, many of which take years to complete and are ultimately inclusive, -- inconclusive, are the very people who have lost their farms, their businesses and their homes. our vote today will also ensure our constituents that this congress is aware of the gross disparity of the funding of environmental projects and efforts and the funding of protection of our citizens. this exact amendment has been passed by voice vote during the past three fiscal year appropriation bills which was signed into law by president obama, is supported by the american waterway operators, missouri farm bureau and missouri corn growers association. it's time for congress to take a look at the water development funding priorities and it's time to send a message to the federal entities that manage our waterways. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support our nation's river communities and encourage more balance and federal funding for water infrastructure and management. madam chair, with that i yield back the balance of my time as i ask my colleagues for support

of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does any member seek time in opposition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the clerk will report the amendment. offered by mendment mr. garamendi of california. page 59, after line 20, insert the following -- section 508. none of the funds made available by this act may be used to approve an application for the supply or export of liquefied natural gas unless the department of energy has consulted with the united states maritime administration on the availability of the united states vessels to transfer the l.n.g. l.n.g. -- the liquefied natural gas.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: without objection, the point of order is observed. 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. garamendi: madam chair, before we go to the dance -- point of order dance, which we seem to be pretty good at, i want to explain why this is an important step. not as strong as the previous issue i raised but nonetheless a very, very important step in the process of how we are going to export our liquefied natural gas. as i said earlier, the united states is blessed with a very significant amount of natural gas. many people raise the question about whether we should export it at all. that question is interesting but moot because we are going to export it.

we already have one facility that's been approved and will be soon exporting gas. the question that this amendment addresses is, will that gas be exported on american ships, american flags with american sailors? as i said in the previous amendment that i brought up, this issue has already been resolved with regard to the importation of natural gas. we are now talking about the exportation of natural gas, and therefore, we would simply do the same thing we do with imports, do it with american ships, american sailors and american flag. there is a reason for that. i splaped it -- explained it earlier. it has to do with maritime safety and the safety of the ships. let me tell you these ships carry an extraordinary amount of natural gas, and should there be an incident, then it could be extraordinarily

dangerous in our ports. that's why the original law in 2006 was put in place. now, all this amendment does is to set a small criteria for what already happens. the department of energy does consult with the -- with mirad. they already do the consultation, and this simply says in that consultation consider the american flagging of these ships. doesn't set a requirement. doesn't set new law. it simply says when you consult, mr. secretary of energy, with the -- with mirad, then consider american flagging of these ships. that's it. nothing more. but i got to tell you this is important stuff, and that's why

the navy league and that's why the shipbuilders council as i said others who don't have their letters with me said who said within the navy league and the shipbuilders council said in this letter, and i read this paragraph, one proposed amendment would require the department of energy, d.o.e., to consult with mirad on the availability of u.s. flag vessels in processing applications for the export of liquefied natural gas, l.n.g. that's it. support this. why? because they see the opportunity for the maritime industry to do in the export what is required in the import. that's it. how this could be ruled out of order i don't understand, but when that opportunity comes, i intend to take that up also. why don't we vote? as members of this house, why

don't we vote on whether we support our maritime industry or not? i yield the remaining time to my colleague from the great state of ohio. ms. kaptur: i'd just like to thank the gentleman for offering his amendment and even though it is subject to a point of order i think you're drawing attention to the importance of the u.s. maritime industry and this burgeoning opportunity is extraordinarily important. i just want to commend the gentleman for that, and i know how hard you fight for our ports, for our maritime community and let's find a way to do this somehow. i yield back the time to the gentleman. mr. garamendi: remaining time? the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. garamendi: how much time do i have? the chair: 45 seconds. mr. garamendi: one second? the chair: 45 seconds. mr. garamendi: oh, 45 seconds. i don't know what to say here. the points of order are

interesting but not to me but to this issue i would love to see a vote on the house floor on whether we really support our maritime industry, whether we really support our sailors or not. this is about as minimal an amendment that i could imagine, and i'm almost embarrassed of bringing something so weak to this floor on something so important as the future of our maritime industry. but i don't know if i have any choice but to at least try with this small step to bring before the house an amendment that would really help our industries. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i continue to reserve my point of order and claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: the gentleman brings up an interesting subject, as the gentlelady from ohio said, and it's something i

would hope he'd continue to work on through the appropriate channels. the problems that may exist with his proposal here -- and this is not the right place to do it on the appropriation bill -- the amendment would prevent the department of energy from approving an application for liquefied natural gas export unless the department has consulted with the u.s. maritime administration on the availability of u.s. flag vessels to transport the liquefied natural gas. the department does not have nor applicants for l.n.g. currently provide information on which vessels will be used for transportation. in fact, shipping companies are separate and distinct from companies applying for export licenses. and assessing the shipping requirements for l.n.g. is not within the d.o.e.'s current realm of technical expertise. the reality is there are a few, if any, u.s. flag vessels capable of carrying l.n.g. at this point. i know the gentleman would like to change that, and i agree ith him on that.

but we need to do it through the proper channels. we need to do it through legislation that i understand the gentleman is probably working on right now through the authorizing committees. so madam chairwoman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 2 is. the rule states an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law the amendment imposes additional requirements and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does anyone wish to speak on the point of order? mr. garamendi: keeping in mind i speak to the point of order and not to the underlying proposal amendment -- proposal, amendment, i don't believe this changes any existing law, although the entire bill changes existing law, this amendment speaks to one part of

what already takes place and that is the department of energy does consult with mirad on this subject matter. this amendment simply says that the department in that consultation shall consider the issue of availability of , l.n.g. lagged crude tankers. doesn't say you can't go forward. you can go forward. it simply says in that consultation take into account this simple issue. with regard to the point of order, the amendment that precede it, my attempt with this amendment did in fact change law but was not ruled out of order. now, i accept the fact that i

an't have it my way. in fact, i'm one of seven children and i never really had it my way, but this is not a substantive, even a minor change in law compared to what preceded this amendment. so ok. i know i'm going to lose this one but i'm not going to give up on this issue and i appreciate the support of the chair on building american l.n.g. tankers and we'll bring that to the appropriate committee at the appropriate time. in the meantime, madam chair, i think you're about to make a rule. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the chair is ready to rule on the amendment. the chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the department of energy to consult with the u.s. maritime administration. the amendment therefore constitutes violation of clause

2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in rder. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the table. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment number 1. energy loan program.

the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill insert the short title, section, energy loan program, no funds made available by this act may pb used for the department of energy's loan program office. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from texas, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. >> as you get off on the plane and fly into san jose and fly

and drive south, you will see a huge building built with taxpayer money. this is known as sill indra and the assets that were contained chinese re sold to the on 10 cents on the dollar. our taxpayers' dollars went to a program that failed. you see the energy department investing and calling winners and losers. and i, for one, want to see a stop of money from the taxpayers into failed nonproductive industries. and this amendment simply eliminates the funding for a program which has been demonstrated is an embarrassment not just to our government but actually to the administration. mr. stockman: it's a simple amendment and would do great justice to the american taxpayers and america if we stop funding the chinese technology

and selling our assets at 10 cents on a dollar. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i claim time in opposition. >> madam chair, i rise strongly to oppose the amendment of my friend. mr. rogers: my colleague seeks to remove our administrative costs that the department of energy needs to conduct oversight of its existing loan portfolio. the recent loan guarantee to create the first new nuclear facilities in over 30 years at the plant in georgia will create thousands of jobs and will need oversight to ensure that funds are spent properly. in april, the department made available $8 billion of loan guarantees to advance fossil

technologies on the cusp of development. these loan guarantees, among others, need administrative support for decades to come. without those administrative costs, the department would not be able to monitor risk, manage projects or provide the proper financial analysis that a loan guarantee needs. these activities are essential to ensure that taxpayer funds are protected in the existing loan portfolio. for these reasons, i cannot support our colleague's amendment. and i urge members to vote no. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. stockman: i respect my colleague and he has some valid points however we repeat this mistake over and over again as we invest in failed projects that continually costing tax

pairs' money and sell it to a third world country and taxpayers are losing money and i would like to send a message to the department telling them we as taxpayers who don't want to see them waste money and hopefully this will be a shot across the bow and more aware of the taxpayers' concerns that they shouldn't invest in every program. the administration has loaned more money to solar panels, which again, is going to go bankrupt. almost all the solar panels have all gone bankrupt. and that ends coming out of the pocket of the taxpayers. and with ta, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to our distinguished colleague from ohio.

ms. kaptur: i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. i find it extremely shortsided because in this program we have built 15 advance vehicles. wind farms in the world, first nuclear power plant in the country, largest vol tayic generation facility, and i can tell you that this isn't -- this is new technology. this is like nasa at the beginning where we have private sector money involved and public sector. there will be some errors made and the chinese undercut the market. i have seen it happen. i'm have the solar valley of ohio. i saw what the chinese have done. we have the best in the country in terms of volume and that was largely privately funded but in vol ginning it had photo

tayic industries. and this isn't the same as going out for a car loan. when you have china that buys technology from under you in start-up companies. i would say they have done a commendable job in embracing the future and i think the gentleman's amendment is not constructive. and i thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. stockman: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. stockman at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, offshore drilling permit, no funds made available by this act may be used by the department of energy to block approval of offshore drilling permits. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. stockman: there is oversight, i would argue there is oversight on permits off the coast of texas which we have been developing and there has been an unfair interference and

i think to send a signal to the department that we are serious about allowing us to become number one in the world in energy. my district alone employs thousands and thousands of people in the energy industry and having these kind of restrictions laid upon the industry is not longsighted but rather shortsighted. i ask the amendment be accepted as proposed and i think overall, it will be a benefit to the united states if we develop on. off the coast of california, they have as much as $1 trillion in reserves and much of it is seeping up naturally. by allowing rm industry to develop those fields, you would have less seepage of oil up on the coast of california. and i want us to continue to create jobs and the number one job creators in the united

states is energy. if we look at the future, the future of the united states is going to be in the energy energy and i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i rise to claim time in opposition. i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. it is nongermane to our bill. the amendment is actually unnecessary, because there are no funds related to this purpose in our bill at all. perhaps the gentleman could present the amendment to another bill, but literally, it is extraneous. it has no relationship to the bill before us here in the house and i would ask my colleagues to op owes it. i yield back. -- oppose it. the chair: the gentlelady yields

back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. stockman: if that's accurate, then it shouldn't be a problem supporting it if it doesn't have any impact on the bill. i believe it does and from what i understand, it would be germane, but that's a difference of opinion and i yield back the balance. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. 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. stockman: i ask for a recorded vote. thank you. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. will the gentleman indicate which amendment? mr. yoho: amendment 1. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. yoho of florida, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section 508, none of the funds made available may be used to implement or enforce any rule that would increase electricity prices or reduce electricity reliability. the chair: pursuant to house resolution -- mr. yoho: -- mr. simpson: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641 the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. yoho: i want to begin by

congratulating my colleagues for crafting a strong bipartisan that enhances our nation's energy infrastructure, strengthens our nuclear weapons program and ensures investments are made to grow jobs here in america. i would like to thank the chairman and ranking member and the hardworking committee staff for accepting language. this past april 28 of my colleagues joined me in a letter suggesting language be included. i'm pleased it ended up in the final product and i thank you, chairman simpson, as do our nation's farmers and ranchers. the amendment would limit the administration's ability to create and enforce rules through the department of energy, rules that would increase our cost of electricity and decrease the reliability of our electric grid. this administration has made unprecedented rules and regulations when it comes to the sources of our electric generation. this president's stance against fossil fuels which provides 80%

of our electricity is crippling costs. these policies injury low-income americans the most. those with the most disposable income will have to choose between feeding families or possibly turning on their air conditioner. this is america and we have the means to produce inexpensive, reliable energy sources and we need to do just that. we do it responsibly and we become great stewards of the environment. we as people of government, in government, should do what is best for the american people, for the american economy, increasing our energy security and our competitiveness. with that, mr. chairman, i would yield to the gentleman from idaho for any remarks he may have. the chair: does the gentleman from florida reserve? to the i yield

gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i'm going to raise a point of order against this amendment, i support the idea of what he is trying to dofment i'm concerned about the unintended consequences but i agree with is intent that increase priest is. and i look forward to mitigate if necessary it's unintended consequences and ways we might be able to do this that don't subject themselves to a point of order. and i yield back. mr. yoho: i understand that and i appreciate your concerns of the broad nature of the amendment. my hope is to work with chairman simpson and chairman up ton to find a solution of this problem. i can't sit by while this administration destroys affordable energy sources in the world and with that, i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman

from idaho continue to reserve? mr. simpson: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order. requires a new determination and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member seek recognition? . . the chair is prepared to rule. the chair fipeds that the rule includes a new determination on the rule of electricity prices or reliability. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustain and the amendment is not in order. -- is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

>> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sean patrick maloney of new york. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the follow, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement, administer or enforce the order entitled order excepting proposed and establishing a technical conference by the federal energy regulatory commission on august er- 013, docket number 13-000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from new york and the member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. maloney: many of my colleagues may be familiar with ferc but i imagine few have experienced the agency with the accountability we have experienced in the hudson valley or seen how a few unelected

bureaucrats can wreak havoc, literally, on our utility bills and those of our struggling neighbors, without regard for basic facts like how people use energy or how those bills would be paid or whether people can afford to pay the bill that was worst winter and highest energy cost in a generation. this egregious bureaucratic overreach has to stop. in january, ferc approved a plan to create what's called a new capacity zone in the hudson valley. this new zone would arbitrarily impose an unprecedented $230 million increase in energy costs in my region for just the first year alone and nearly $500 million in increased costs over the first three years. this is absolutely outrageous. and unnecessary. and no one elected anyone in the ferc and they are accountable to no one. but their decisions affect all of us. and in this case affect the struggling rate pays of the hudson valley. initial estimates show that

customers in the hudson valley could see their electricity costs go up by 10% after the worst winter in a generation. every single day i'm hearing from my neighbors about how awful this decision is and their fares -- fears of how they'll pay for their energy. i heard from russ who told me that as a senior on a fixed income, this is an increase he can't afford because he's expected to pay $120 more this year and he doesn't have it. it's not just families that will be hit. schools like those in carmel are scrambling to find ways to cut budgets that are stretched thin. our largest employers like i.b.m. estimate that this ferc decision could cost just i.b.m. up to $10 million over the next year you might think that an agency with that kind of destructive power would be accountable to someone but apparently you'd be wrong. last week, i received a letter from the duchess county execive stating that in 20 years that he's been in elective office, quote, i have never interacted

with a less accessible, less accountable government entity, seemingly impervious to legislative and public scrutiny. end quote. i couldn't agree more. we have that agreement across party lines and across levels of government. this is an unnecessary and destructive step to fix a problem we can fix in oso many other ways. we have to rein in these bureaucrats. my amendment is simple, it would prohibit funds from going to enforce the decision that created the new capacity zone because a runaway agency like this needs a serious wakeup call and this will let ferc know they're accountable to folks like russ and the seniors in my district and to this congress. i thank you and 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 to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: i rise in opposition to the amendment, and i understand, i certainly understand the gentleman's

concerns. we engaged in a colloquy and hour or so ago and i supported the member's concerns and i still do. however this amendment goes beyond what i can support. i'm concerned that such a blunt action as this amendment may have unintended consequences. we simply have not had time to understand all the implications to the electricity prices and electricity rere-liability or other interactions with ferc order referenced in the amendment. therefore i must oppose the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the gentleman from new york. mr. maloney: i thank the chairman for his assistance with the colloquy earlier. i respect his remarks. let me point out that this relates to a specific ferc docket so by definition it can affect nothing other than the specific decision i've refered to. i would like to yield to my colleague across the aisle, chris gibson for such time as he would wish to consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. gibson: i want to thank my friend, sean patrick maloney, we're working together on this amendment and fighting for our constituents. we just came through last winter one of the harshest winters for those in upstate new york where we saw gas and home heating prices rise. we saw our electricity prices double. and yet, as my friend, mr. maloney, just pointed out, we see that ferc wants to continue on and has moved forward with this new capacity zone which they claim is going to lead to more generation. but look, these rising rates, they're not necessary. we've already -- we've already had interest in our region for more generation. this is just more burden on our constituents and you take a look at how this is impacting across -- this is hurting hardworking families. it's impacting small businesses. so we're talking about loss of jobs, we're talking about heartache on families, all for something that's unnecessary and

as mr. maloney pointed out, this is coming from ferc, which has really been unaccountable when it comes to our concerns. mr. ma he nee and i are, -- mr. maloney and i, our governor, we have had leaders at every echelon reach out and explain to them, especially given the harsh winter we went through and the fact that it's unnecessary, this is tone deaf. and outrageous that they're going forward. we want to fight this mr. chairman and ranking member, we thank you for your acknowledgment in the report language going forward, we think that will be helpful, but we need relief right now we're asking for support for this amendment. we think this is the right thing to do i ask my colleagues to support, stand up, let's fight for families, let's fight for small businesses. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. at the end of the bill, before she short title, insert the floling, section, none of the funds made available in this act may bh used within the borders of the state of louisiana by the mississippi valley division or the southwestern division of the army core of engineers or any district of the corps within such divisions to implement or enforce the mitigation methodology referred to as a modified charleston method. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from louisiana and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to present an amendment that's a bipartisan amendment that's been passed in the last two years that this bill has

come before the house. what this deals with is a change in process for mitigation methods that the corps of engineers implemented back in 2011 called the modified charleston method. when they implemented this new method of mitigation, it basically started making a lot of projects, surely in southeast louisiana, unworkable, including, mr. chairman, flood protec ps. one of the things we've seen is it has increased the cost of flood protection projects along the coast by over 300%. which in many cases made those projects unaffordable for local governments to be able to afford flood protection for theirselves, where they're putting up their own money, and here comes the federal government putting in an unworkable plan that makes it cost prohibitive to actually implement flood protection and of course we've seen at the federal level what happens if you don't have that kind of protection. we don't want to be in a position where we're stopping local communities from being

able to protect themselves against flood with their own money. what's even more ironic about this, mr. chairman is that the corps of engineers, while they've imposed this on local governments and private business, they exempted themselves from it. the corps of engineers doesn't use this method that they've imposed on everybody else, i'm sure because they recognize it would be unworkable for them but they impose it on everyone else. that's not the way we should do business, mr. chairman. what this amendment says is no funds may be expended to implement that unworkable methodful let's get back to the normal way to have doing mitigation, which was practical and the way most other places do it. i want to submit for the record a letter from my colleague, cedric richmond, who is in strong support and is the lead co-sponsor of the amendment, i want to submit that for the record. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered under general leave. does any member claim time in opposition? the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: i urge adoption. the chair: the question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. yoho of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act y be used for this de-foa-0000697 sustainable cities urban energy planning for smart growth in china and india.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. yoho: at a time of deep deficits and mounting national debt, we can't allow taxpayers' dollars to be squandered away to upgrade cities in china and ndia at this time. it was intended to accelerate the deployment of clean energy technologies at the expense of the american taxpayers. while this appropriations bill does not explicitly include funding for these projects, i believe this amendment is essential to ensure the administration cannot misuse hard-earned taxpayers' money. all in this chamber have seen what the president is capable of and giving the -- given the opportunity to invoke his ideological agenda, it's not america's job to help foreign nations upgrade their cities. cities like china and india have

their own taxpayers and are among the largest economic engines in the world. our country is founded on the principle of self-determination. enticing economic change in foreign countries with money borrowed from future generations is a gross departure of that principle, especially at these hard economic times. and with that, i would like to recognize my colleague and good friend from the state of georgia, mr. collins, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. collins: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentleman from florida. this goes back to a simple reflection of priority. we're here tonight and both sides are coming to the floor, offering amendment, talking about energy and water, mr. chairman, you've done a fine job of bringing this to the floor and i think we've got some good stuff going here. but this is about priority. why should we be looking at funding priorities for other countries who have their own sufficient taxpayer money, their own sufficient growth. they may have trouble in growth but why are we looking at it from a perspective that we

should possibly say we're going to use our funds to do this on? this is not something we need to be part of. it's not a saying, let china and india take care of themselves. we have plenty of private industry that will go in at a fee and also do this, why would we be putting government funds possibly toward this? i think this is another area where we deal with sustainable cities, this is a concern of many of my constituents whether it be, as some have called this, looking at how we go across the world, an agenda wannabe, this is something we shopt be doing, something we should limit. simply saying, let's be a leader, let's let the rest of the world pay with their own dollars. i appreciate the gentleman from florida for bringing this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognize. mr. yoho: we again, as people in government that represent our constituents, should be -- we should d everything in our power to make america stronger both economically, energy, and more competitive across the world, not less. again this amendment will prevent future actions from the

administration causing hardworking american taxpayers' money to be spent to subsidize clean energy in countries like china and india. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i rise in opposition to the amendment. ms. kaptur: this amendment would prohibit funding what is called the sustainable cities program, which is aimed at deploying u.s. technical expertise to urban energy planning for cities in places like india and china. so the gentleman and i look at this in a little bit of a different way. this effort is aimed at developing markets for u.s. products in places that are growing. and i think census figures show that india and china are absolutely growing and their

economies are growing and in places like china, it's growing so fast they are often stealing our technology and buying our companies out from underneath us and we lose market edge. this particular program encompasses technical assistance activities to actually prime those markets for our clean technologies in places where there is population increase and a need for product. and would help potentially to support the export of american clean energy technologies. that means jobs here at home, means exports out of the united states rather than imports in here in two major economies. working closely with u.s. companies, the department of commerce and other governments will focus on product testing, developing minimum standards, certifying that we can actually

achieve the installation of these clean energy products and here at home, obviously, we help our clean energy sector to develop. specific examples already under way include facilitating a memorandum of understanding that could lead to the first commercial scale deployment of concentrated solar power deployment in china a deal that could be $350 million with key intellectual property here in the united states. another involved, imagining access to the wind energy market in china, which is a growing market. coordination and exchanges between our department and private sector, u.s. and chinese cities has led to increasing sales of u.s. clean energy goods in china already. and it's no secret that china has some challenges.

india has challenges dealing with the populations and stress on their energy infrastructure. we need to boost innovation here at home. this is one modest program but one that deserves attention. the last time i looked, we as a country had a gigantic trade deficit, more goods are coming in here than our goods going out. this is one small step going forward to try to penetrate those markets using some of the higher technologies that we have in the energy field. i oppose the gentleman's amendment. i think he might look at the program in a different way than i do and i urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. and i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 offered by mr. fleming of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from louisiana and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. fleming: i rise today to offer an amendment that would stop a loan program created by the 2009 stimulus bill. last year's amendment passed the house by significant margin and the administration appeared to get the message. not authorizing any new projects during the fiscal year. however in the most recent budget request, they plan to receive and review hundreds of proposals, review six business plan proposals and provide

technical assistance and assist with two projects in the financing phase. one of the future projects estimated to cost $1.5 billion for the federal share alone, which is almost half of the western area power administration. -- authority. how bad is this program? it is not only a loan guarantee program like the one that backed sylindra but with a built-in bailout mechanism. and i'm going to quote from what the law says. it says if at the end of the useful life of this project there is a balance owed to the treasury under this section, the balance shall be for deleff given. that means we have agenda-driven renewable energy projects being funded directly by the federal government and if they fail,

taxpayers are on the hook once again. what has been the performance of these projects so far? in november of 2011, the department of energy issued a lengthy management alert on the stimulus-borrowing authority. to quote from the report, because of a variety of problems, the project estimated to be two years behind schedule and $70 mill overbudget, essentially out of funds and currently at a standstill with no progress being made. western had not completed a formal root-cause analysis and corrective action plan designed to ensure more effective program safeguards are in place going forward. because western's committed $25 million in developmental funding to a potential $3 billion project that ultimately require an investment of $1.5 billion, we are issuing this report as the management alert, end quote.

that's why last year's republican budget noted quote, the $3.25 billion authority in the western transmission infrastructure program provides loans to develop new transmission systems aimed solely at integrating renewable energy. this was inserted into the stimulus bill without opportunity for debate. the authority includes a bailout provision that would require american taxpayers to pay out outstanding balances that investors failed to repay, end quote. as i and many others have pointed out, the bill that was passed, it was a shovel-ready programs and became a vehicle to have higher levels of spending. as with other government loan programs we have seen abuses and mismanagement and this program is no exception. i also want to thank my

colleagues, mr. mcclintock and chairman hastings for their past work to repeal this program. i urge my colleagues to support and pass this amendment and i reserve the ball of my -- balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ms. kaptur: i rise to claim time in opposition. i rise in opposition to the amendment. i think the gentleman's amendment including some vagueness of his language will likely have many unintended consequences. for example, one of the projects, the end bridge corporation which constructed the montana-alberta power line has already repaid our government $161 million of its borrowed authority, its loans, decades ahead of schedule, showing the transmission projects when vetted properly are sound investments.

essentially, his proposal would repeal the western power marketing authority's borrowing authority for the construction of transmission lines that would bring renewable energy to market. the american recovery and reinvestment act provided $$3.25 billion in borrowing authority. this authority allowed for the construction of new transmission lines to deliver from renewable energy sources. by repealing their authority, it's just another example of the republican party's anti-renewable strategy. the borrowing authority has led to the financing of too much needed transmission lines out west, and the one i mentioned the montana-alberta transmission wind and brings win

to ation is looking utilized the solar power on to their reservation. if adopted, it would have the following impact. verde plant, it could be brought to a halt. it supports mostly rural customers and is a model of public-private partnership for which this program was created and will allow customers and potentially others to add renewable energy to the grid which strengthening the transmission system. if that project is totally completed, something that is jeopardized by this amendment, the benefits of the project includes customer access to the trading hub and also providing

300 megawatts of capability of e.d.-5 to support and enhance nuble bility of re resources in southern arizona. have jobs that would be negatively impacted and on behalf of the project, how it reimburses the staff for work and support of the project. now i mention that there are projects already under way that this amendment would bring to a halt. what sense does that make? we have already got issues in our country -- the gentleman does have his own time and i only have five minutes. we need jobs in this country. we need affordable energy in this country and diversified energy and i don't understand why the gentleman is offering this amendment. but i can tell you the attorneys who look at this language continue to find there will be additional impacts due to the

language you have proposed and i would guess your amendment would likely would have unintended con sequences. i oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. and the gentleman from louisiana . the gentleman has a minute and a half. mr. fleming: my response is first of all, there is nothing vague about the billions and billions of dollars that have already been wasted through corporate welfare, giving loans that are guaranteed by the federal government, loans to companies that now have failed and taken the taxpayer money with them. now with regards to the gentlelady's claim that programs or projects already in progress would be stopped, well that's absolute nonsense, because those deals have been signed. that money has already been committed.

what we are talking about is stopping any new projects. and if these projects made sense, whether it is renewable or nonrenewable or carbon-based or noncarbon based. there are a lot of people who made money on energy. but the reason why there isn't a private market out there primarily is because the government has displaced that private market. and number two in many cases when the question is asked, in fact the president of the united states, why is the government lending this money and his answer was, well, because, you can't get it from the private market and private investors. why? it's a dumb idea. why do we want to let the taxpayer money go down the tubes when people a heck of a lot smarter than we are see it is unfit for lending and capital production. with that, i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. walberg at michigan, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to carry out section 801 of the energy independence and security act of 2007. 42 united states code, 17281. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed will each control five minutes. . . mr. walberg: i thank the chair. i offer an amendment that would

prohibit the use of funds to carry out a national media campaign to promote alternative green energy. in 2007, congress authorized the create at of energy to national media campaign to convince americans to buy green technology to the tune of $5 million a year. my amendment would simply prohibit funds from going to this misguided, unnecessary government-run campaign. as constituents in my michigan district are struggling to deal with $4 a gallon gas prices and energy costs brought about by this administration's harmful energy limitation policies, the last thing we need, mr. chairman, is washington bureaucrats telling them thousand live their lives. they are smart enough to know, as are the overwhelming majority of american citizens in all of

our districts, mr. chairman, to know what energy sources work for them, work best for their families, for their businesses, and especially when our country has emerged and se merging still further if we would allow and encourage it, as an energy superpower and now leads the world in natural gas and oil production. instead of funding unnecessary ad campaigns, let's get to work on energy policy which takes advantage of our energy abundance and leads to lower prices, more jobs and greater global security. green technology should be a part of a real all-of-the-above energy policy but picking winners and losers is not the role of the federal government of is it in the core mission the department of energy. i was pleased when this amendment was adopted last year and i encourage my colleagues once again to support it.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does any member claim time in opposition. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. walberg: mr. chairman, having said, i think, what's necessary, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye have -- ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate -- would the gentleman designate which amendment? >> 157. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section 508, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to design, implement, administer or carry out the global climate research program assessment. mr. mckinley: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the

reading of the amendment. the chair: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from west virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is similar to ones offered to previous appropriation bills, which all have passed with strong bipartisan support. this amendment would prohibit agencies like the department of energy and the core of engineers from being required to spend money on climate change policies forced upon them by the obama administration and which have been based on biased studies. the time of fiscal austerity and prioritization of spend, how can we justify taking money away from our nation's leading scientists, physicist, and engineers at the national energy technology lab, but at the same time asking them to research and develop clean coal technologies, carbon capture and

sequestration, increase efficiencies for our turbines and power plants and improving our natural gas extraction techniques from shale? and we should not be reducing funds from -- for rejuvenating our locks and dams along america's rivers, especially when the american society for civil engineers rated our nation's waterway infrastructure and land infrastructure at d-plus. mr. chairman, a d may be a passing grade for a president, but it's a failing mark in my book. spending precious resources to pursue a dubious climate change agenda compromise ours clean energy research in america's infrastructure. when similar amendments were adopted pleevesly, some claimed we were denying agencies the use of science. that's simply not true, mr. chairman. we want them to use science. but mr. chairman, i want them to use science that doesn't come

with a biased agenda. for example, the united nations report says that the ant -- that the ice in antarctica is shrinking. however, nasa's satellites confirm that antarctica's ice levels have increased. increased by the size of nlan an all-time record. congress should not be spending money pursuing ideologically driven experiments when we face real, serious challenges to our country's infrastructure and its pursuit of energy efficiency. i urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. it flies in the face of 97% of the world's scientists who agree

that climate warming trends over the past century are likely due to human activities and could impose significant human and economic costs on societies, including ours. this amendment requires the department of energy to assume that carbon pollution isn't harmful and that climate change won't cost a thing. that's nothing but fantasy. the republicans in general don't seem to trust the scientists and i would hope that they would listen to the economists and business leaders ringing alarm bills about the -- alarm bells about the costs of unmitigated climate change. standard and poor's released a report saying that climate change will put dunward pressure on sovereign countries around the world. they wrote, and i quote, climate change is likely to be one of the global mega trends affecting sovereign nations, mostly negatively. it concludes that extreme weather events, especially

floods, and i quote, can be expected to increasingly take a toll on a country's infrastructure and thus productivity. standard and poor's also warned that fiscal performance will decline as government budgets come under threat from climate induced support and infrastructure reduction costs. we've had a little of that in our country already. last month, three former secretaries of treasury released a report on the economic cost of inaction on climate change. henry paulsen, treasury secretary under president george bush, and i quote him, said, our economy is vulnerable to an overwhelming number of risks from climate change. the report identifies numerous economic risks, including large scale losses of coastal property and infrastructure, extreme heat across the nature, human health and energy systems and shifting agricultural patterns and crop yields. secretary paulsen wrote that these risks, quote, include the potential for significant

federal budget liabilities since many businesses and property owners turn to the federal government as the insurer of last resort, unquote. the economic impact of climate change will be felt globally, particularly by the poorest countries. last year the world economic forum released its annual global risks report, paced on a survey of 1,000 experts from industry, government, academia, and nonprofits around the world on the global risk most likely to manifest over the next 10 years and those that could have the greatest impact. the report found that rising greenhouse gas emissions posed one of the biggest global risks in the coming deck aid and that failure to adapt to climate change could have a tremendous sose yo economic impact across the globe. this isn't just a looming threat. we are suffering from our country the cost of climate change today. the skyrocketing costs of fighting wildfires, for example. the mounting costs to farmers of losing their crops and their livestock to more freerkt and severe drought. the -- more frequent and severe

drought. the cost of rebuilding infrastructure swept away by intense storms. ask the people in new orleans or new jersey or new york. but this amendment ignores everything that's already happening and all the warnings that it's going to get a lot worse. this amendment denies economic reality and decrees that climate change imposes no costs at all. of course, ignoring the costs won't make them go away. in fact, all evidence shows that the longer we wait, the more we will allow the risks to compound and accumulate, the more costly it will be to solve the problem in the end. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? ms. ka kaptur: i ask for a record -- ms. kaptur: i ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: the doctor pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings will be postponed. mr. mckinley: i have another amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill, before she short title, insert the follork section 508, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to transform the national energy technology laboratory into a government-owned, contractor-operated laboratory or to con sol dade or close the national energy laboratory. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution 641, the gentleman and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckinley: because there's been efforts, i suppose, to privatize and consolidate the national energy laboratory, this amendment is offered to eliminate that uncertainty and continue the present public-private partnership.

netl is our nation's premiere energy lab rah -- premier energy laboratory using 600 government scientists, technicians, employees. but they couple that with nearly 1,200 private sector contractors. through this partnership, netl has developed breakthrough research. carbon capture. enhanced natural gas exploration and production. emission control for power plants and steam and gas turbine efficiency. plmp, the bottom line is that no other national laboratory has the expertise and the capabilities in fossil fuel energy to develop what netl already has. this public-private model has also been used by the national institutes of health and the center for disease control. mr. chairman, if our government research laboratories are privatized, what assurance would

congress -- members of congress have that that research would be done in america? just pick up a newspaper on any day and you'll read about another corporation moving its research and development work offshore. people looking to privatize and consolidate these laboratories seem to be searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. i urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does any member wish to claim time in opposition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of he chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. o -- is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. weber of texas, at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the fol logue. section 508, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the cape wind energy project on the outer continental shelf off massachusetts' nantucket sound. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. weber: i rise to offer a simple and fiscally responsible amendment that should be supported by all members of this body, to prevent the d.o.e. from moving forward on a loan guarantee to an offshore wind project. let me hasten to add that texas is the leading state for producing wind energy in this great country. you know, mr. chairman, earlier this month, the department of energy approved $150 million conditional loan guarantee for the cape wind offshore wind energy project this project

consists of 130 wind turbines, each 440 feet in height, spanning an area the size of manhattan, and located in the nantucket sound off the coast of massachusetts. this project would be funded and built primarily by foreign businesses and would fail to create significant local employment opportunities. rather than using local businesses in the state of massachusetts or even in the united states, cape wind has outsourced the building of turbines to denmark and the production of turbine foundations to germany. it doesn't take more than a simple google search, mr. chairman, to find out that this offshore wind project has been mired in controversy and litigation for the past 13 years. ou know, federal agencies and they deduce dollars cape winds impact. project opponents which includes the alliance to protect

nantucket sound and public employees, the town of barnstable and a trip of gay head can appeal the project after the court rules on the agency's response. in addition, there remains an outstanding appeal of the cape them. oject to protect and cape wind. according to the alliance to protect nantucket's sound, quote, our case alleges that they were coerced into signing a no-bid contract that violates federal law and discriminates against green power producers from out of state and burdens small businesses and municipalities with unnecessarily high electricity costs, end quote. mr. chairman, this loan guarantee is a wasteful gesture by d.o.e. to support a project

that falls into the same category that quote, solar energy giant, that received $over 500 million in taxpayer money before its spectacular crash and burn three years ago. we cannot afford to have another paid-for paid for by our constituents. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. any member wishing to claim time in opposition? the gentleman from texas. mr. weber: by supporting this amendment, the house can send an important message to this administration that every penny of taxpayer money is precious. if cape wind has merit, it should be built on those merits from solely private dollars and not on the backs of american taxpayers. i urge adoption of this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the igse have it and the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: i have an an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 22 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentlewoman from tennessee and member opposed each will control five minutes. mrs. blackburn: i appreciate the recognition on my amendment. before i get into the specifics on that amendment, i want to thank mr. dent and subcommittee chair and chairman rogers for their work on this bill which deals with the department of energy rules finalizing for standards for ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits and prohibiting money being used on that regulation because of the

impact that it would have on our constituents and on the price of ceiling fans. i appreciate the good work they have done on that issue. i also appreciate the great work that they have done on this bill. mr. chairman, we've got a $34 billion bill in front of us. and i so appreciate the work of the appropriators as they have approached this and the responsible manner that they have gone about in bringing this bill forward. and it is a bill that is going 50 million pend $ less and that's a good thing and the appropriators are are to be commended for that. it is less than what the president wanted. and tonight, this two-line amendment that i have says this is great work, but we've got

problems. when you look at the economic situation in this country, when you look at what is happening with our debt, as we are pushing toward that $18 trillion in debt, you have to say how is it fair for us to keep borrowing ney, borrowing money and spending it on federal programs that are going to be left for our children and grandchildren to pay for. these are programs that many of them will never use. it's programs that will have out lived its justfulness when their grandson's earn the first pay check. by borrowing and what we are doing is passing the bill to them. it is passing the buck. on the future generations to pay for it. o my amendment is another 1%

across-the-board cut. another $341 million in savings and what it says simply to all of our agencies that are involved in this bill, everybody, a penny on a dollar. just reduce your spending by one penny on a dollar. get in here. challenge yourselves. challenge your employees to save a cent, one penny out of what they have been appropriated. it do it responsibly and do not only for the sovereignty of this nation, do it for our children and grandchildren. don't burden them with debt. it is the ultimate cap and trade. what we are doing is capping our children's future and trading it, trading it.

while there has been tremendous work done and our republican-led appropriations committee is doing work that has never been done. and reducing the spending and pulling it back, we need to challenge these agencies to join us in this effort. just as our businesses in each of our districts are cutting back and saving money, the federal government needs to be doing the very same thing. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves the balance of her time. mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: i rise in opposition to this amendment and while i commend my colleague, this is not an approach i can support. what she suggests is just saving one penny from the federal agencies is what we have been doing for the last four years on

the appropriations committee, as she recognized. we have been reducing spending and we have reduced spending much more than 1%. this bill full -- is fully consistent with the ryan-murray budget compromise and $50 million below last year's level. while difficult tradeoffs had to be made, this bill currently in its current form balances our needs. we prioritize funding for critical infrastructure and our national defense. these tradeoffs were carefully weighed for their respective impacts and yet the gentlelady proposes an across the board cut on every one of these programs. makes no distinction between where we need spending to invest in our infrastructure, promote jobs, meet our national security needs and where we need to limit spending to meet our deficit reduction goals.

the basic problem i have had with across the board cuts is that it doesn't recognize the programs that are priorities and things that we ought to be spending money and the federal government ought to be spending money on and maybe those things that we ought to cut more. in the appropriations committee, every time we do an appropriation bill, those are the decisions we make. we priority idse them. when the democrats are in the majority, the priorities goes towards their priorities. when we are in the majority, the spending goes towards more of our priorities. there are areas in there if i were king for a day, there are areas that i would probably cut more or areas that i could spend more. but this is a bill that is a compromise, hopefully a compromise for 4335 members of congress that have different priorities and different needs and does meet the budget goals that we have established in the

republican budget that was passed this year. with that, i oppose this amendment and i would yield to y good friend from ohio, ms. kaptur. ms. kaptur: i would say that mrs. blackburn's amendment is well intentioned, we have met the goal in our subcommittee. we are $50 million below last year and it's important to keep your eye on the context. the context is in the last 10 years, well, little more than that, since 2003, our country has spent $2.3 trillion on paying for imported petroleum. when you look at the budget deficit, ask yourself why this country has lost economic muscle inside our borders and our meager $34 billion tries to

compensate for that $2.3 frillion of loss and with oil at $100 a barrel, we could probably lose in the next 20 years, close to $10 trillion in economic activity. so what we try to do is to fund critical projects in this bill to help us crawl our way back to energy independence in this country all the while cutting our accounts. and i think you can't cut the future off. you have to recognize the context in which you are operating. i think you are well intentioned and misfocused and missing the bigger elephant in the room here which is we are losing wealth and losing strength economically because of these incredible imports thatville catapaulted over the years. n 1998, it is simply

unsustainable and reinvent our economy forward and create middle-class jobs and income that the american people are asking for. i thank the chairman for yielding to me. i oppose the amendment and i ask my colleagues to do the same. mr. simpson: i yield become. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: i'm not going to argue with much of what they had to say. the committee has met its goal but to say this is not the context, i would beg to differ with the gentlelady from ohio. if we wanted to spur energy production in this country, the president could go out here and do one-stop shop and lift the ban on leases and open up production and exploration. there is a way to do that and we love to see him do that rather than restricting energy production.

when it comes to across the board cuts whether it is a democrat governor like in missouri or when you have cuomo in new york, why do they do the cuts? it spurs economic growth. go back to 1964 with johnson and the revenue act. why did they lower unemployment and generate revenue growth? because they cut federal spending. there is a benefit to getting your fiscal house in order. nd while we have set a goal, which i applaud, i continue to say, it is not going to be enough until we continue the deficit spending. it is time to get our fiscal house in order. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. blackburn: i ask for a

recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. byrne of alabama, at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement, administer or enforce executive order number 547, 75 federal register 43 023, and including the national ocean policy developed under such executive order. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from alabama and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. byrne: i offer this ocean nt, the national

policy created under executive order was signed by president obama in 2010 and requires various bureaucracies work together to essentially zone the ocean and the resources thereof largely affecting the ways in which we utilize our ocean resources and impacting our inland. you heard of land grab? is this ocean grab. this amendment says none of the funds made available by this act can be used to administer implement or enforce this executive order. this policy has large implications for our marine resources but reaches much further than the ocean itself. a drop of rain that falls on your land can cause the federal government to have jurisdiction over your property under the notion that this drop will wind up in the ocean.

they recently waters of the u.s. rule which expands the agency's jurisdiction onto the clean water act by redefining waterways, serves as an example and i commend the committee for including a provision of this bill barring the implementation of such rule. . it -- there's a council that has no statutory authority to exist and no congressional appropriation. both the natural resources committee and the appropriations committee have asked for detailed spend regular ports on this overreaching policy and neither committee has yet to receive any information. numerous and varied industries will suffer as a result of this well meaning but ill-conceived policy, including but not

limited to agriculture, energy, fisheries, mining, and marine retail enterprises to just name a few. this has the potential to be devastating for coastal communities such as in my district. a coastal district located on the gulf of mexico where the previously mentioned industries play a critical role in our economy. those affected most by the policy won't have a say or any representation in the rule making process. because there's no current system of oversight in place for the regional planning agencies created as an arm of the national ocean council. much uncertainty remains regarding program implementation. its impact. the limits of its authority. and lack of true stake holder involvement. the president indicated he will use his pen and his phone to create policy against the will of congress and the national ocean policy is a perfect opportunity for him to do so. i urge my colleagues to support

this amendment to stop excessive regulation and protect our ocean and affiliated land economies and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks recognition? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady from maine is recognized for five minutes. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment that is offered here today which would block funding for the implementation of national ocean policy. the national ocean policy seeks to improve the coordinated management of our oceans and coasts and to address the most pressing issues faces -- facing our oceans, resources and coastal communities. just two weeks ago, there were over 100 different users meeting in massachusetts to help develop new england's ocean plan. this included lobstermen from maine, my home state, science educators from new hampshire, fishermen from massachusetts, clean energy company representatives from rhode island, and recreational fishermen from connecticut.

all meeting with federal and state agencies to talk about how to improve their options for their local businesses to build resiliency for coastal communities in the case of extreme weather events, and to maintain the health of the ocean that provides us with goods and services that we need and enjoy. national ocean policy does not call for zoning the ocean. it is a strategy to increase efficiency by bringing stake holders together, giving citizens and businesses a voice in the decision making process. this policy provides a way for the federal government to hear from and to coordinate activities with the states, communities and business owners. many states and local interests are eager to coordinate with the federal government and this policy is already helping to make that happen. let's be clear. the policy is really about helping agencies like noaa fisheries work more cleesely with fishermen and the navy to coordinate with port communities. why would we consider prohibiting these critically

important relationships between businesses, states, and federal interests? the national ocean policy helps to ensure that our resources, our culture, our history, and the economic vitality of our communities are fully considered in the decisions concerning our oceans. i urge my colleagues to join me and i now yield as much time as he may consume to the representative from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he wishes to use. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise in opposition to the byrne amendment which would prohibit implementation of the national ocean policy which provides better coordination among those responsible for coastal planning. this amendment, preventing the army corps of engineers from coordinating with federal and state partners, would impede states like mine from managing their own resources that best meet their needs and priorities

and investing in ways that -- investing in our coastlines in he most responsible way. does not modify any organization's mission or authority. it establishes a more effective and efficient decision making process. in the northeast, our regional council aloud states to pool resources and businesses to have a voice in decision making and has coordinated with federal partners to ensure all stake hold verse a voice in the process. allowing federal subject toys -- agencies to coordinate ocean laws and giving states and local governments a voice in the ocean planning process is smart public policy. i urge my colleagues to reject this very misguided amendment. i yield back to the gentlelady. the chair: the gentlelady from maine. ms. pingree: i thank my

colleague from rhode island for his articulate thoughts and reinforcing what those of us in coastal communities truly believe. i want to say one more time, this is critically important policy for our country. i'm fortunate enough to represent a state that has some of the highest level of shoreline of any state in the nation. we have fishermen, we have economic interests on the shore and every day i hear from my constituents who are deeply concerned about the changes that we're facing, whether it's sea level rising, changing in the fisheries, loss of species, economic issues involving our coastlines, working water front, these are serious issues. this represents people's livelihoods. coastal communities. businesses. our economic interests are at stake. i can't imagine the idea that we would move backward in national ocean policy that we would lose the opportunity to coordinate on these critical interests, that we would do anything that would encage the economic development and the economic future, cultural future of our communities, our fisheries, and so many businesses that states

like mine are completely dependent on. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and recognize that we have severe issues ahead of us and we have a lot of work to do i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: thank you, mr. chairman. i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to read the amendment. it doesn't stop any group of people in my state or any coastal area in this country from working together to do the things they have to do to protect their waters and to use their waters. in fact, it frees them up because under this executive order, this amendment would say we're not going to use the money from this bill to fund, they could be restricted. in my coastal communities, we do meet together and the federal government is not a good partner. in fact, they have been a hindrance to our ability to use our waters. because there are people in the federal government who unfortunately believe that the oceans belong to the government,

not to the people. we need to doment this amendment for coastal communities throughout the united states of america so that we can protect the people's right to control their own oceans and their own waters system of that fishermen and commercial uses and recreational uses of our waters are kept and preserved for communities throughout the country and i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alabama yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, 166. the chair: the clerk will report.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the department of energy's climate model development and validation program. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer an amendment to save taxpayers money, help the department of energy avoid duplicative programs, and to ensure its limited resources focus on programs directly related to its mission to ensure energy security of the united states. this simple amendment would prohibit the use of funds to be used toward the proposed climate model development and validation program within the department of energy. the duplicative and wasteful nature of this program has been recognized by several outside spending watchdog groups. my amendment has been supported by the citizens for -- eagle

forum and the taxpayers alliance. the committee has recommended no funding for the climate model development in the report. i commend the committee for their recommendation and the work on this issue. i feel strongly that the full house needs to support the recommendation and send a message to the senate that we should not be wasting money for new programs that compete with the private sector. if funded, this program would be another new addition to the president's ever-growing list of global warming program that was been initiated and funded all over the federal government in recent years. the nonpartisan congressional research service estimate this administration squandered $77 billion for the fiscal year 2008 to 2013 studying and trying to develop global climate change regulations. consequently, i am very concerned by ongoing efforts to waste more taxpayer dollars on

climate model development and validation. the president's budget request for this program states, and i quote, new investment in climate model development and validation will enable re-- restruck tchirg model architecture and computational upgrades and incorporated components. these are things being done by dozens of government and nonprofit groups across the country. while researching earth's climate can be of value, it's not central to the department's mission. considering the extensive work being done to research, model and forecast climate change being done in the private sector and internationally, funding for this is not only redundant, it's also inefficient. i thank the chairman and the committee for they work on this bill and this issue specifically this amendment is about effective use of taxpayers' money and i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. with that, i reserve the balance of my kime.

the chair: the gentleman re-- balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? ms. pingree: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pingree: this amendment blocks funding for the department of energy's climate model development. this is climate science denial at its worst. the world's top scientific institutions are all telling us that we have a rapidly closing window to reduce our carbon pollution before the catastrophic impacts of climate change cannot be avoided. so far the -- so far, the world has warmed by .8 degrees celsius and we are already seing the effects of climate change. most scientists agree that two degrees celsius is the maximum amount we can warm without really dangerous effects. although many scientists now believe that even two degrees is far too much, given the effects we're already seeing. but absent dramatic action, we're on track to warm four to six degrees celsius by mid

century. that's more than 10 degrees fahrenheit. the international energy agency concluded if the world does not take action to reduce carbon pollution by 2017, just three years from now, then it will be virtually impossible to limit warming to two degrees celsius. how do we know all this? there are multiple lines of evidence, including direct measurements. but scientists also use sophisticated computer models of how the atmosphere and oceans work and how they respond to different atmospheric concentrations of heat trapping gases. for projections of future emissions and their impact, scientist made numerous sanses by collaborating across numerous fields, including biology, economics, agriculture, scenario building and risk management. these projections are critical as they provide guide posts to understand how quickly and how steeply the world needs to cut carbon pollution in order to

avoid the worst effects of climate change. the goal of the d. omplete's climate model development and validation program is to further improve the reliability of climate models and equip policymakers and citizens with the tools to predict the current and future effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, extreme weather events and drought. mr. gosar's agreement -- amendment scrap this is program. it says no to enhancing the reliability of our climate models, it says no to improving our understanding of how climate is change, it says no to informing policymakers about the consequences of unmitigated climate change. i think that's absolutely irresponsible. the amazing thing is the base bill zeros out fund for this program but apparently that isn't enough to satisfy the republicans' climate denial so mr. gosar has offered this amendment to reiterate the point that the house republicans reject the overwhelming scientific evidence about climate change.

i urge my colleagues to oppose is amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from maine yields back her time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment about fiscal responsibility and efficiency. more than 50 universities and academic institutions around the globe are engaged in climate modeling. this particular issue has been addressed very well by academic and nonprofit sector with great efficiency and speed than any government bureaucracy can ever look at. the president has already spent $77 billion since 2008. this is one top -- this is on top of billions of dollars being spent by institutions and organizations around the world. let's start talking about that. the nation is currently $17.5 trillion in debt. the federal government spends $1 trillion more than it takes in. fact, more than 50 of the world's leading scientific institutions are already deeply

engaged in climate modeling and spending billions of their own dollars on this research. fact. congress must make tough choices to conduct duplicative programs in the government and to get federal spending under control. and let's look at the facts and look at these universities, these prestigious universities who obviously don't know what they're doing. the university of colorado in boulder, harvard university, m.i.t., princeton university, university of arizona, arizona state university, university of chicago, university of california-berkeley. mr. chairman, last time i looked at, these are some of the leading institutions in the country and i think they know better than the federal government and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentlelady from maine. ms. pingree: i ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have nor amendment at the desk, 173. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to award grants or provide funding for high efficiency toilets or indoor water efficient toilets. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from arizona, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer an amendment to save taxpayer money and get the government out of the business of subsidizing expensive toilet exchanges and upgrades that yield highly questionable returns. this amendment has support from several spending watchdog groups including the council for citizens against government waste, eagle forum, the taxpayers protection alliance

and generation opportunity. if toilet exchange programs are -- were efficient as the e.p.a. and bureau of reclamations claim, then such products would save customers so much money and water overtime that they would sell themselves into the private marketplace and would not need taxpayer subsidies. according to the house committee on natural resources, the bureau of reclamation's own data shows that the agency has awarded a number of questionable grants on these probablies since 2005, totaling almost $2 million. the federal expenditure spent on toilet exchange programs include a $200,000 grant in san francisco in 2007 and a $300,000 grant in texas and california during 2011. further, in 2013 reclamation awarded nearly $210,000 for high efficiency flush valves to be installed on urinals in one city in california as part of its water smart program, despite the fact that this investment of this project is estimated to save only 123 acre feet of water per year. for 2014, the agency wishes to

grant funds towards a nearly million-dollar project for indoor water efficient fixtures and toilet upgrades in california. at the same time federal policies have allowed more than $3 -- 300 billion gallons of water to be diverted into the san francisco bay and pacific ocean to protect a three-inch fish. if we're truly concerned about saving water, then we should instead invest in new infrastructure and water storage projects, including reservoirs, that could yield significantly higher returns on our investment. ur country's federal multidams and reservoirs provide abundant amounts of water and allow for clean hydropower generation. this infrastructure investment helps provide the foundation for economic growth and long-term job security. unfortunately the obama administration continues to focus solely on conservation and has actually taken actions to reduce water storage capacity. actions which include calling for the removal of four privately held dams. this defies common sense.

we should instead have a balanced approach that includes both conservation and storage. expensive toilet exchange programs are not the answer. and here are the facts and figures about those programs. customers are eligible for $100 rebate for installing a 1.2 gallon toilet in exchange for their 1.6 gallon toilet. these new toilets cost between $200 and $500 each. an average toilet is flushed six times per day, each federally subsidized upgrade yields about $7 per year in water and utility savings. 30-year mortgages provide quicker returns on investments. the kicker to these taxpayer funded toilets are significantly smaller and in many cases have to be flushed twice. furthermore, these government subsidized toilets are a bad investment as they eventually leak. if people are going to spend $200 to $500 on a new high efficiency toilet, a $100 rebate from the federal government is not what makes their decision to purchase the toilet in the first place. at the rate we're subsidizing this program, we may as well be flushing taxpayer dollars down

these upgraded toilets. with this ludicrous return on investment, it should go without saying that these projects are a waste of hard-earned taxpayer money. i ask you to ponder on these callous ways that money could be spent more wisely, including investments in increased water storage capacity. this amendment is about effective use of taxpayer money and i ask my colleagues to support it. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves his time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: i yield the balance back to the chairman. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. kelly of pennsylvania. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of section 210-d-1-b-12 of the water resources development act of 986, 33, united states code, 2238-d-1-b-2. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from pennsylvania and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment simply requires that the harbor maintenance funding provided in this appropriation bill complies with the recently enacted wrda law and that the 10% funding requirement for the great lakes will be met. the water resource reform and development act of 2014, which this body passed by a 412-4

vote, includes an allocation for the demrakes navigational system of -- great lakes navigational system of 10% provided above the financial 2012 baseline. but this bill is more than -- this amendment is more than about that. this is a bill that really dwells on the great lakes and what a great gift from god this nation was given with the great lakes. 1/5 of the world's freshwater, not 1 nivet of pennsylvania's -- 1/5 of pennsylvania's freshwater or america's freshwater but 1/5 of the world's freshwater is in our great lakes. there's also a commerce element there. now, where does that fit in and why do we talk about that? we're talking about jobs. we're talking about jobs in our great lakes. we're talking about 128,000 american jobs. over $33.6 billion in annual revenue. that's 3% of our nation's gross domestic product. now, this commonsense amendment just directs the army corps of engineers to use the allocated

funds as directed. we talk about the great lakes and we talk about it an awful lot and i think that sometimes we forget how great this gift is and what our responsibility is. sure it's a gift from god but it's up to men to maintain it. this great body, looking at this opportunity that we have right now to actually direct funding that makes sure that we can still navigate through our great lakes, that we are -- through our demrakes, that we can dredge our waters -- great lakes, that we can dredge our waters. the great lakes are truly our door to the world. it is our responsibility and it falls on our shoulders right now to support that. i appreciate the chairman and the ranking member's willingness to support this amendment and their support for our great lakes. i'd like to thank congresswoman miller on -- for her work on behalf of the great lakes. i urge our colleagues to support this amendment. i thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

who seeks recognition? the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition although i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i support this amendment. on this particular issue, applying the referenced wrrda provision to this fiscal year 2015 bill means that roughly $30 million must be provided for the harbor maintenance of the great lakes navigation system. the underlying bill funds the budget request which included approximately $100 million for the great lakes. therefore while i believe it is unnecessary, i do not object to this amendment and will support it and i would yield to my good friend from ohio. ms. kaptur: i would thank the chairman for yielding and commend representative kelly for offering this important effort and highlighting the importance of the great lakes. i feel that you may be the last speaker this evening. i don't know. but we would say last but not least. especially for those of us from the great lakes. and we love the attention because we most often don't get

it. and we had conversations today about oceans and about other parts of the country and it's just so great to have someone with your commitment to the great lakes. we know it's the largest body of freshwater on the face of the earth and that commerce moving through the seaways, the shortest distance between the united states, europe and ports even on the western side of africa, if you look at the way that the globe actually works, and so to have this kind of work by yourself, by the chairman of our subcommittee, mr. simpson, by candice miller, by so many others that work on great lakes issues, it's wonderful to have this team put together and to see that we've done a better job for our great lakes in this bill than in past bills. and by the way, i might say that the lake on which the communities i represent are situated, lake erie, is the most drawn-upon of the lakes and the most fragile. and therefore -- and we share

her with canada so it gets even a little more complex as we move forward. but i just wanted to commend the gentleman. i thank the chairman for giving me the time and i know the people who are listening from the great lakes region greatly appreciate the attention and what we do in this bill to make sure that those lakes are maintained. thank you so very much. mr. simpson: i thank the gentlelady and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from idaho yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, hudson number 36. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hudson of north carolina. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. , section, a -- following, section, a, none of the amounts made available in this act may be used by a program authorized

in law. b, the limitation in subsection a shall not apply to amounts under the headings national nuclear security administration, environmental and other defense activities, or defense nuclear facilities safety board. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from north carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. hudson: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise this evening to offer an amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill that would prohibit funding for any program included that is not authorized by law. for far too long congress has continued to appropriate spending on government programs with little or no oversight. our country has essentially been on auto pilot toward the cliff of fiscal and economic disaster. this has resulted in a massive and out-of-control bureaucracy that is wasteful and inefficient. and this -- in this bill alone there are 23 unauthorized programs. some of these programs were last authorized in 1981 and

there are others that have never been authorized. in total, these unauthorized and unchecked programs in this legislation receive around $25 billion. with over $17 trillion in debt, we owe it to our constituents to review each agency and program, to determine if they're the best use of taxpayer dollars to serve the public need. additionally, the rules of the house require that appropriations may only be made for purposes authorized by law. the prohibition on unauthorized appropriations cannot be enforced because the rules that bring appropriations bills to the floor routinely prevent a point of order from being raised. my amendment prohibits spending on unauthorized programs but it exempts defense-related programs because these were authorized by the house when we passed the defense authorization bill in may. . this amendment parallels with my bill, the federal sunset act of 2014, which would force congress to evaluate each agency and program and consider recommendations to reform or

abolish specific entities to ensure the best use of our resources. this would dramatically overhaul the way washington budgets and spends hard-earned tax dollars and would allow congress to take back control, scale back our blote bureaucracy and provide accountable for the federal government. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i'm sympathetic to what the gentleman is trying to do. it's a concern i've had for a number of years. a few years ago when i was chairman of the interior subcommittee, we brought down a bill and defunned any listing of new species or designation of critical habitat because the endangered species act hadn't been re-authorized for 20 years or something like that. our intent wasn't to get rid of the engaged species act but to send a message that the authorizing ches need to do their job. and i was supported in that,

actually, by the chairman of the interior -- resources committee that is in charge of re-authorizing that bill, so far, that hasn't been done. they haven't been able to get it done. as you know, it's sometimes difficult to pass re-authorization bills for a lot of these different programs. but many of these different programs are very, very important. because we can't -- i continue to try to seek a way to put pressure on the authorizing committees to do their job. to get these done. so far, just defunding them has achievinguccessful in that. i don't know why that is. but it is frustrating both to me and the sponsor of theament, yet this amendment would do great damage to the department of energy and i guess you could use this government-wide, last lot of programs, you'd be surprised which programs are -- haven't

been re-authorized. i think the department of state hasn't been re-authorized, most seniors programs have not been re-authorized. but if we can find a way to put pressure on the authorizing committees to do this, i would be more than happy to work with the gentleman to try to accomplish that goal. but ending the programs this way i think would be too dramatic of an effect. while i sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do, i have to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from idaho yields back. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, hudson number 3 2. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hudson of north carolina. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, a, each amount made available by this act is hereby reduced by $7.4381%, b, the reduction in subsection a shall not apply to ams under headings, national security administration, environmental and other defense activeties or defense nuclear facilities safety board. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from north carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. hudson. mr. hudson: i rise this evening to offer an amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill that would cut spending back to the fiscal year 2008 level. while i appreciate the work of the appropriations committee in crafting this important bill, it does de-- that does decrease spend, we must recognize that a cut of $50 million is a rounding error here in washington. my amendment makes an across the

board cut of 7.4 to decrease the amount back to 2008 levels. the congressional budget office affirms that it would reduce the budget by $1.3 billion. defense accounts are exempt from these savings because this house just addressed defense programs in the national defense authorization act a few months ago. we're on the path to a horrific debt crisis in this country. when i ran for congress, i repeatedly said the first step we must take to reduce spending and get our fiscal house is in order is to go back to 2008 leveled and then let's go program by program and find savings, find duplicative programs we need to cut, find the waste and again, mr. chairman, we've got to get our fiscal house in order, get ourselves back on track. my amendment does just that allows taos return to a point where we can get serious about making substantive cuts, begin to pay down our debt and save future generations from this horrific debt crisis that we're on a collision course with as things now stand. mr. chairman, i reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i guess the first question i would ask is, why 2008 spending levels? why not 2006? or 2004? or 2000? or 1998 spending levels? or 1972? or 1900? what we need to do is look at what we are spending now and create savings by deciding what is important an what we ought to be doing and what are those things we might like to do but we don't have the money to do. and eliminate those programs or he deuce spending in those programs. which is what the appropriation committee does every day. when these bills come down here, we have had hearings on the different if you thinks of the federal government and believe me, if you or i were to sit dun and discuss what the federal government ought to be doing, we would agree on a lot. there would be things we would disagree on that i think are

essential and things i would disagree that you would think are essential. we have 435 member, represent all corners of this country. and a budget is, by its very nature a compromise in those different opinions on what ought to be funded and what the proper role of government is. one thing we do know. we are $17 trillion in debt. and that a portion of that, a portion of the solution is reducing our discretionary spending. we have been doing that for the last four years. and it has been hard work by the appropriations committee. we also know that you cannot get this budget to balance, no matter how hard you try, by reducing discretionary spending. it's not large enough in the overall context of things to cut it enough to get the budget to balance. you've got to do other things. you've got to have tax reform, entitlement reform. we have to look at every area that the government is spending. and right now, i think it is about 28% of the total

expenditures of the federal government are discretionary spending. about 72% of them are mandatory, they're on auto pilot, they just go on unless we change the underlying law. we've got to have the courage to address a lot of things that is driving our debt and i will tell you, you will never balance this budget until you get the economy growing again. that's the reality. when you looked at the late 1990's, when president clinton and a republican congress balanced the budget or at least that's who was in charge, we can argue about who balanced it, but at that period of time, it wasn't because republicans were so conservative that they came in and reduced spending and the budget all of a sudden got balanced, or it wasn't that president clinton came in and raised taxes and everything and all of a sudden we had a ton more revenue. what it was is that the economy grew. and i mean, it boomed. we had the dot com double -- bubble, if you remember, where we had more money coming into

the federal government than we knew what to do with. when we talked about paying off the national debt, i heard redates from leading economists that said, we could pay off the national debt too fast. we had that much money coming in. because the debts wouldn't come due when all the money was coming in. but then of course that turned around when the dot com bubble bust and since then -- then 9/11 happened, and a whole bunch of other things two wars, etc., etc., etc. the reality is, you can't balance this budget simply by reducing sis cessionnary spending. but the appropriations committee has been doing their job. they have been looking at the proper role of federal government, what our responsibilities are, what we must fund, and what we should fund and also at what we would like to do and sometimes just don't have the money to do. so those are the difficult decisions we've been making and we continue to do that. this type of approach, i think, that would take these accounts,

only some accounts, back to the 1998 levels, i think would hurt our economy. in fact, one of the big parts of our account is the army corps of engineers which does water infrastructure, lobs, dams, which is vital to our economy. i don't know that you want to cut that by 7.8% they have president opro-- proposed a $1 billion cut in it. a huge cut in it. we restored it. because we, both republicans and democrat, realized how important the water infrastructure of this country is. those are the decisions we make on the appropriations committee. a committee i'm proud to serve on. that has made over the last several years some very, very difficult decisions and will continue to do so because just like every member of this congress, we realize we can't continue racking up the debt as we have over the last several decades. so i appreciate that and i would oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. simpson: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from idaho yields back. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i would like to rise in opposition to the gentleman's well intentioned amendment. it's obvious he pays attention to the math. and what's important about the math of our deficit is we haven't been growing fast enough to meet the needs of this country. we have a demand problem. among vast numbers of the american people. who aren't consuming as fast as they used to because they lost their jobs, they've lost their equity because of the housing crisis, and because if they've gone back to work, they aren't earning as much as they used to earn. the middle class is shrinking, as you well know, the ranks of the poor are growing. we have a demand problem in this

society. the energy question, and the reason i'm opposing your amendment, is because our allocation is about $34 billion. if you look just at this year, we will have over $200 billion in imported energy that sucks wealth out of this crypt and sends it somewhere else and the portion of our bill that deals with energy is not $34 billion but maybe a third of that. a third of that. so you've got maybe $10 billion, $15 billion at the most, in our bill that deals directly with energy, versus over $200 billion in terms of energy imports system of we are way out of balance with society. the portion of investment we make here to invent the new energy future is moving us in the right direction but too slowly. so do i feel we're going to meet the needs that we need to for the future? i fear our generation is failing at that, as hard as we try here.

and if i look at the progress we have made, in 1998, that was the first year where america imported over half its energy, a decades before that, it had been about 40%. before that, the last 30 years we've rem raj -- hemorrhaged in bringing this sufficient in. this year about 40% of what we consume will be imported. we've moved from 199 importing 50% of what we used to 40%. i think president obama has made a difference, some of my colleagues may not agree with that. but with drilling on some of the -- opening up drilling on lands across this country, we've begun to close the gap. but drilling our way out of this is not a total solution. we need new energy technology. this bill moves us in that direction. don't allow your amendment to stop us from increasing our ability to become energy independent and create the kind of demand inside this economy that will create the jobs we need for the future to heal our

middle class and move people out of the ranks of poverty. you are well intentioned but i think you're out of focus in terms of where the real challenge lies. thank you very much, and i yield back any remaining time. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio yields back her time. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. hudson: i appreciate the comments from my colleagues, i appreciate the work of chairman simpson and his staff have done preparing this bill. i understand the challenges they face and i appreciate the cuts they've made. but mr. chairman, we're on a path to absolute ruin in this country. if we don't spend one new dollar, we're headed toward a fiscal crisis in a very short time. we've got to get off that path. and so, i -- one way to do it is to go back to 2008 spending levels and then let's do the work that the appropriation committee has done on this bill. let's start on 2008 an look at which programs we want to keep, which programs are duplicative, where's the waste, but we've got

to start somewhere. frankly, $50 million is a start but not a big enough start. i would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is -- the gentleman from north carolina. mr. hudson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina ill be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 4923, directs me he to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 4923 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declare -- declares the house this recess for a period of less than 15 minutes.

the specific complaint from the white house is that house republicans want to make this particular tax revision permanent. they want to extended indefinitely and they do not want to come up with a way to pay for it. meanwhile, the white house points out that it carries a significant price tag of about 280 $7 billion. they say republicans have opposed a number of their provisions and they are taking issue with the fact that republicans want to make a tax break permanent without coming up with the same. >> who are some of the key conservative members that they are working on to get this thing passed?

>> it has passed through the house ways and means committee relatively easily. it should not have a problem .etting through the house it should also have some democratic support. the key debate here is what they do when it comes to the senate, which is trying to push a much shorter extension of this particular division. this term extenders, tax extenders a lot. in this debate, what are they specifically referring to? >> they are timing out provisions that are temporary and often expire. congress decides to extend them every couple of years, so we call it the extenders package. a provision that actually expires at the end of

2013. now they're trying to get those extended retroactively. as we talked about earlier, several republicans would like to see them become person -- permanent pieces. they are pledging among should -- they are approaching -- they are pushing a much more limited approach, talking about covering 2014 and 2015 so we can revisit this debate in 2015. they say it does not make sense to try to make this permanent. >> it seems like the house and senate are pretty far apart. any chance there will be some sort of agreement and get it done before the 113? >> it seems as if some sort of agreement is going to be reached. the timing is the key issue. that both parties do not want to see these tax revisions go away. senate majority leader has

said he wants to bring it up but it will probably not come up session. lame duck >> we appreciate your update. >> any time. is expected to come up tomorrow. here in the house in a few minutes we are stepping back for votes on amendments leading up to final passage of the 2015 energy and water spending bill. from then, we will hear house speaker john boehner, who weighed in today on president obama's request for money to help unaccompanied children on the border. >> good morning, everyone. republicans continue to make the american people's priorities our priorities and jobs and the economy are clearly the american people's highest priorities.

we have introduced two bills businessesencourage to invest and create jobs here in america. we are sending a bipartisan bill to the president for his signature. i worked on this issue with the chairman of the education and workforce committee. i want to thank virginia foxx and john kline for getting this done. one is an important step, will of many that have been taken to the number of job training and retraining programs so that americans who want additional skills and education have better access to these programs. it's another example of what we can accomplish when senate democrats will work with us to address the people's priorities. i compare all of this to the president's tone deaf celebration of our struggling economy yesterday. you want to talk about being out of touch.

middle-class families continue to struggle with high prices of everything from groceries to health care and because of the higher costs of living, they are falling further and further behind. 200 88,000 american sounds job 288,000 americans found jobs last month. that's good, but let's have a dose of reality. more americans gave up looking for a job. more people have given up looking for work van have actually found work. as the ways and means committee reported yesterday, it is the in ourobs recovery history. clearly, we can do better. republicanshouse have passed jobs bills that are currently being blocked by senate democrats. the president should join us in pushing the senate for more

action. i frankly think middle-class families deserve it. along the southern border, we have a true humanitarian crisis underway with children caught in the middle. unfortunately, it is a crisis of the residence own making. children and their families were told that if they entered the country illegally they would be able to stay. our priorities are clear. children.of these return them safely to their own families, and secure the border. the president last month laid out specific actions to address the crisis, including sending in the national guard. the national guard is uniquely qualified to address these types of humanitarian crises, and utilizing them would free up border agents to focus on their job of securing the border. yesterday he said he would

consider doing that only if he gets more money with no strings attached. in other words, he won't do it for the kids. it's all about politics. the president assured the american people that the border is secure, but clearly it is not. members of our working group are reviewing the administration's request. i can tell you this. we are not giving the president a blank check. await that, we will discussion with our members before we make any final decisions. yesterday --m fat yesterday.phatic when you hear this from folks in your party, what do you say? how do you talk them off the ledge. >> i disagree. it's as simple as that. i disagree.

>> do you agree that the 2000 law needstrafficking to be revised? >> i do and i think the president does as well. >> to you expect that house republicans will pass some sort of legislation to deal with this crisis? >> i do believe that the house should act this month. what that act and will be i think is yet to be determined. chairman of the appropriations committee doing his due diligence, looking at options, and those discussions are going to continue. changing the traffic law, which the white house has also doesit favors, how far it that have to go?

should it include mexico or will it have to go that far? >> we will let the working group work out the details. i think we can all agree that countries thatus now are required to hold those people, i think clearly we would have language similar to what we have with mexico. graham saidindsey yesterday that if her publicans do not go ahead and approve this funding, we are going to -- if republicans do not go ahead and approve this funding, we are going to get blamed for this problem. >> listen, this is a problem of the president's own making. he has been president for five and a half years. when is he going to take responsibility for something? >> the leader said the gop highway bill would put to the

country into a rut. support raising the gas tax? >> i have never supported raising the gas tax. we are not going to get to a overterm highway bill here the next couple of months. that is why the ways and means committee in the house and the senate finance committee are working on a proposal to extend forcurrent highway program another 6-12 months. the house ways and means committee is acting as we speak and i expect the next decision will be on the floor of the house. greg c said you wanted to hear from the financial -- >> you said he wanted to hear from the financial services committee. i wonder what the chairman may have told you about his plan.

that and othert issues yesterday. nothing to report as of yet. you will have to ask him. yes sir. lawsuit ine particular in terms of immigration, which actions are , those he is with looking to implement in the future or those he has already implemented? >> we have made this clear. this is not about me suing the president. it is not about republicans versus democrats. this is about a legislative branch that is being disadvantaged by the executive branch. it is not about executive actions. most presidents do executive actions. most of them do it within the law. we are talking about place

s -- >> members are coming back in for boats dealing with 2015 sending for energy and water. will the gentlewoman from the good state of north carolina, ms. foxx, kindly take the hair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house for further consideration which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for water and energy development and related agencies for the fiscal year send r ending september 30, 2015. the chair: when the committee of the whole, a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina had been postponed and the bill had been read through page 59, line 20.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order . an amendment by mr. burgess of texas, an amendment by mr. lamalfa of california. first amendment of mr. stockman of texas, second amendment of mr. stockman of texas. amendment by mr. mckinley of west virginia. amendment number 22, an amendment by mr. gosar of arizona, and amendment by mr. hudson of north carolina. the chair will reduce to two minutes after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by

voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the ealt. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-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 chair: the amendment is adopted. unfun issued business is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lamalfa of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote, the yeas are 239 and the nays --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 239 and the nays are 182. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for a r recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. stockman and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: first amendment fered by mr. stockman of texas. the chair: a a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote, the yeas are 140. the nays are 282. adopted. ent is not the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. stockman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: second amendment offered by mr. stockman of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 218, the nays are 204. the amendment is adopted.

the unfinished you business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: those in support of the recorded vote will rise. snord. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 229, the nays are 188,

he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 22 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk are redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 22 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the eas are 150, the nays are 271. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offer by mr. gosar of arizona.

the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 226, the nays are 194, he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. hudson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hudson of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 131 --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 131, the nays are 29. he amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read the last line. the clerk: page 59, line 21, this act may be cited as the international, water development and related agencies appropriations act, 2015. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: madam chairwoman, i move that the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments and with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 49 23 directs me to report the same back to the house with sundry amendments with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill do pass. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on state of the union has had under and deration h.r. 3293 recommends the that the bill pass. the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. e