throughout the united states of america. i thank my good friend for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady -- the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, at this time it's my great pleasure to yield five minutes to the vice chairman of the rules committee, one of our great leaders from north carolina ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. . ms. foxx: again i thank my colleague from georgia for the great leadership he shows in the rules committee and on the floor. mr. speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made many comments, some of them i'm going to do my best to refute. comment by comment. others are just -- i'm just going to talk about in general. but their one charge is that congress should stay out of the business of governing d.c. article 1, section 8 of the u.s. constitution gives congress

expolice its jurisdiction over the con-- explicit jurisdiction over the country's seat of government. the extent to which congress should oversee or intervene in the governance of the district is a debate for another day, but it's clearly our responsibility. current law compels congressional oversight and we must exercise responsibly that jurisdiction. that includes acting to stop legislation that clearly violates the constitutional freedoms of the citizens of the district. mr. speaker, it's important to note that women are protected by law, both federal and d.c., from discrimination on the basis of pregnan would

actually give employers the right to fire an employee for the reproductive health care choices of their spouses or their children. the other side is saying it's all right to fire someone because their boss doesn't like their wife's or even their children's health care choices. talk about restricting someone's rights. it would take away a whole range of women's private decisions and make them firblee offenses. in vitro fertilization, you're fired. exercising your right to choose, you're fired. you have a daughter on birth control, you're fired. this is outrageous ridiculous and totally unacceptable. it is an insult to women everywhere and even more amazing is that this resolution is being proposed by the so-called party of states' rights. they're not proposing a federal law. they're taking away the rights

of a locality. . which has a population larger than most states. this is a new low in this congress. i urge a strong no vote. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, for folks who were just turning on the tv's back mayor in office, they may think we're in the middle of issue debate right now. not the case. we can get an issued debate as soon as we pass this rule to begin that debate. what makes me so proud about the work we do in the rules committee is that it makes in order the ability to have these kinds of in depth discussions. we can't have this kind of

discussion right here. there are three topics in this bill. because these three topics in this bill will come later in the day. each being discussed individually. i'll go back to where i began mr. speaker. we're exercising responsibilities of the constitution under article 1, section 8, that require us to do oversight on the district of columbia. similarly we're pushing back on executive overreach in the h.r. 1732, the regulatory integrity protection act. that's that big federal grab over all the watt that are our states are currently -- watt that are our states are -- water that our states are currently regulating. and we'll bring up the balanced budget, the first reconciled budget that most in this chamber have ever seen. this rule makes that debate possible. it will be a free and open debate on the budget as we allowed every single budget to be debated earlier on this floor. it's going to be an open debate on h.r. 1732, the regulatory

integrity protection act, where the rules committee made in order every democratic suggestion that was offered there. every amendment that came before the rules committee and it will be an up or down vote after debate on h.j.res. 43 the resolution of disapproval as the very 1974 act that provided for self-governance of the district of columbia anticipated. if we pass this rule, mr. speaker, we can get into that substance. i look forward to a robust debate on all three of those topics with that i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: mr. mcgovern. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you, mr. mcgovern, for your leadership and for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this rule and to j. h.res. 43. this bill would undermine the district's reproductive health and nondiscrimination amendment act which would protect employees who work in the

district from workplace discrimination based on employee's personal reproductive health care decision. for example, this includes prohibiting an employer from firing an employee for using in vitro fertilization or birth control. simply put this rule and bill is yet another republican attack on women's access to health care and another battle in the war on women. and of course as always you target the women of the district of columbia to set a standard for the rest of the country. what in the world is the connection between your private health care decisions and job performance? this is so cynical it is so wrong. no woman should have an employer or a politician interfering in her personal health decisions. the d.c. government has a right to determine how they want to protect their workers. employees should be evaluated at work based on their performance not on their personal and private reproductive health care decisions. the district of columbia seeks basic fairness for its women, and this rule and this resolution is outrageous, it's

undemocratic, and once again ignores the home rule act. yes. congress should not be dictating any policy to the district of columbia. this debate has been held. the home rule act was passed in 1973. instead of undermining the law that seeks to protect the citizens and women of d.c. from discrimination based on their private reproductive health care decision, we should be getting back to the real business that congress needs to address like strengthening our economy, lifting families out of poverty criminal justice reform and creating job opportunities for all. let's defeat this. let's support the district of columbia and its decisions. let's respect them. let's respect the women of the district of columbia. they, too, have that right. thank you. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman, mr. woodall from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i would advise my friend from massachusetts i do not have any further speakers remaining. i would inquire if he has further speakers remaining.

mr. mcgovern:00 we do. mr. woodall: be happy to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. clark. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. clark: thank you mr. speaker. and thank you to the gentleman from worcester for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to this rule and its assault on americans' reproductive health rights. all women should have the right to make their own health care decisions without fear of loosing -- losing their jobs. with reports of women being fired for undergoing in vitro fertilization and being fired for being a single mom, the city council of washington, d.c. passed a resolution to ban workplace discrimination based on personal reproductive health care decisions.

this joint resolution does not ink fringe on religious liberty. it ensures the freedom to practice individual religious and moral beliefs. this decision of the d.c. council will protect women and ensure that reproductive health decisions are made by women and not their employers and not corporations. it is 2015, and i would love for congress to be debating women in the workplace. we should be talking about how we achieve equal pay. how we increase paid sick leave. and how to help working families make ends meet. we should not be stripping away the progress that has already been made. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. mr. mcgotsche -- mr. mcgovern. mr. mcgovern: could i inquire

how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: you have 3 1/2 minutes. 3 1/4. and the gentleman from georgia has 12 1/2. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield 1 1/4 minutes to the gentlelady from the district of columbia. miss holements norton. ms. norton: i thank my good friend because i'd like to correct some misstatements from the other side. the past mayor and attorney general never detailed what their concern was. but just in case the district passed an amendment that made it clear that insurance and abortion are not covered by this bill. i want to be explicit by the way. a pro-life organization is not required to hire someone who advocates against abortion. you must carry out and you must advocate whatever is the mission of the organization.

this bill has an exception for organizations religious and political views both must be carried out. the 1973 home rule act has not come to this floor before because on three times in 25 years has it been taken up and that was mostly because d.c. mistakenly wandered into federal matters. that's why this federal authority was maintained in the house of representatives and in the senate, not to overturn local law whenever the other side simply disagreed with it. i thank my friend from massachusetts for yielding. and i yield back to him. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. mr. mcgovern. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i will close for our side, and i yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm going to ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the -- my

amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question and vote no on the rule. i just want to make that clear before i continue here. mr. speaker, it's frustrating to come to the floor and have to squeeze into a very short period of time, you know, three different bills on one rule. these are very controversial bills. you heard about the bill that essentially is a war on women in the district of columbia that denies women and men their privacy and their right to reproductive health care. we have a bill in here also that is -- essentially tries to gut the clean water act which is very controversial and has a very direct impact on the health and well-being of the

people of this country. and then we have this budget that was filed minutes before the rules committee met. nobody read it. i also point out that rules committee reports that although the rule -- resolution waives all point of orders against provisions in h.r. jezz 43, the committee is not aware of any point of order. well one of the points of order is the three-deleover which is being violated so you are -- three-day layover which is being violated so you are -- we should be debating an immigration reform bill. we should be debating a pay equity bill. we should be debating an increase of the minimum wage. we should be debating a comprehensive, long-term highway and transportation re-authorization bill to help rebuild this country. there are so many important things that we should be debating and instead we're bringing these wedge issues to

the floor, we're bringing an anti-environmental bill that's going to the floor that's going nowhere and we're bringing a budget to the floor that is not fixing nothing. unless we deal with sequestration, the senate will not take up these bills and neither should we. we should put the american people first and put the electioneering off. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, one of the things i love about this institution is my colleagues come to the floor with different life experiences. they come with different opinions. they come with a different set of bosses. 700,000 folks that i call my boss back home in georgia i'm sure have very different views than those who call themselves the boss of my friend from massachusetts. but i tell you these three bills that this rule makes in order, not that this rule

declares a forgone conclusion on passage no, it makes in order debate on the floor of the house, these three bills are exactly the kind of thing this house should be working on and i'm proud to bring it today. number one, mr. speaker, i don't serve on the oversight and government reform committee. that's where this resolution of disapproval has come from. i did last cycle. i don't this cycle. i heard colleague after colleague come to the floor and defend the rights of not being fired because your sister or your daughter or your son or your brother used birth control. mr. speaker, that's outrageous. i can't imagine that someone would be fired for what their sister or their brother does in terms of their reproductive health choices. i agree. i agree, and if there is an opportunity to work together to prevent that from happening that is apparently happening en masse here in the district of columbia, i want to be a part of it. but the truth is it's not happening en masse. in fact, it's not happening at

all. it is not happening at all. mr. speaker, i do not mind being lectured by my friends to get back to the business of the people. i do not mind. in fact, i am onboard with it every single day of the week. we can start earlier and we can start later and i will be here, but do not mr. speaker do not lecture me on getting about the business of the people and come down with story after story after story that is not what this legislation is about, that is not a problem that is not something that any of us disagree on. mr. speaker, we have some legitimate disagreements on this floor, and if we pass this rule we will be able to get into the nitty gritty of those disagreements. but we do not disagree on the freedom of family members to make their own reproductive health choices without it impacting our own employment. i say to my friends sincerely, if we can find a case in the

district of columbia -- i don't mean a case this year i don't mean a case last year, i mean a case ever, seek me out as your partner and i'll help you. because what folks seem to miss in this frustration is that if we reject the d.c. council's resolution we return d.c. to the law of the land as it exists when, today. we don't take a single right away from anybody, we don't take a single freedom away from anybody. we're not interested in doing that whatsoever. what we're interested in doing is protecting religious freedom. it turns out if you live in washington, d.c. mr. speaker you might work for an institution that lobbies for life. you might work for an institution that focuses on faith. this is a town of ideas mr. speaker, and in the rush to pass a pies of piece of

legislation, these are not my words. these are the words of vincent graham. in the rush to push this bill through, the council did not take the time to protect this cathedral of freedom that we have here, did not take the time to make sure that that first and most important of our constitutional freedoms was protected. now, mr. speaker, the constitution is the constitution. there's nothing the district of columbia can do to undermine the constitution, but they can cause a lot of problems for folks along the way. this is a resolution of disapproval to prevent that from happening. mr. speaker, the second bill that's here, h.r. 1732, this regulatory integrity protection act, my friends suggest that we're talking about clean water in this country, that this is about republicans undermining clean water. i will say again as i said about the resolution of

disapproval, if we pass this bill we will roll the regulatory environment of clean water so far back it will be just like it is today. that's what we're going to do. i just want to be clear about those radical ideas that my friends on the left have suggested. if we have the will in this body to pass this bill, we're going to roll regulation so far back it will be exactly like it is as i'm standing here today. mr. speaker, what this bill is about is preventing the regulatory overreach going forward. guess what, i live in georgia, i challenge you to have a water treatment plant that does a better job than we do. we have a water fountain where the surege gets treated. you can press the button and have yourself in the drink. we put it back in the lake cleaner than we take it out of the lake. i will not be lectured by my friends in an executive office downtown about how to clean water in the state of georgia. i promise you i care more about

clean water in georgia than anyone on pennsylvania avenue does. we're succeeding today. if we have a problem with state regulation of clean water, come to me, i'll be your partner. we'll work on it together. the problem is not that georgia isn't doing a good job. the problem is that the feds plan on getting in the way of georgia doing the job. if we pass this rule we will be able to have that debate. and finally, mr. speaker, and the bill that makes me the proudest is our concurrent budget resolution. my friends have lots to say about why it is this budget doesn't balance. let's be clear. i believe that they're wrong. but what's more important in this discussion, mr. speaker is that my friends don't want the budget to balance. we had a free and open debate on this floor. we considered every budget that any member of this chamber wanted to offer. every single one. interesting thing happened, mr. speaker. every republican budget that was introduced balanced within 10 years and didn't raise taxes

on hardworking americans. every single budget the democrats introduced never balanced. not in 10 years, not in 20 years, not in 100 years. and every single one raised taxes on hardworking americans by trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars in new taxes, still didn't reach balance. my friends, i understand we have a fundamental disagreement about how this country ought to be run, and i am glad that we have that debate here on this chamber. we are a deliberate are a tiff body. i -- deliberative body. i respect the opinions of my friends. i believe there is a common ground we can come to but, mr. speaker, this is the common ground today. for years the budget wasn't even passed in the united states senate much less tried to bring it together so that the house and the senate are working off a single page of music for the first time since

1991 this chamber has done its job in concert with the senate. it's no small thing. far from being something to be criticized. it's something to be celebrated. i don't know where the votes are going to be mr. speaker. conferencing something with the senate is hard. i promise you my bosses back home in georgia have a much more conservative view of the world than many of the folks do in the united states senate. but guess what, i don't get everything i want every day. what i get is an opportunity to come together, to build that bridge of common ground and agreement. that's the agreement we have before us today, not my ideas, not democratic ideas not republican ideas but collaborative house-senate ideas. having a budget for the federal government for the first time in 15 years. mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues, take a look at this rule. you'll be proud. take a look at the work of the

hardworking people, nine republicans, four democrats getting together late in the evening trying to make the rules work. you will be proud. every single democratic amendment made in order on the regulatory integrity act. resolution of disapproval brought exactly as the home rule act intended, last used by democrats to disapprove today used by this chamber. and finally that budget brought only after every single members' idea was debated and the best rose to the top. mr. speaker, i urge strong support of all of my colleagues of this fair and honest rule and with that i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes clearly have it.

mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. and a hearing aid. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, the 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. this is 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 241. the nays are 181. the previous question is ordered. the question is on now on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: 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.

and this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 24 the nays are 180. -- are 242 the nays are 180.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 242 the nays 181. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 236, the nays 175. with two voting present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration and transportation and infrastructure be discharged from further consideration of house concurrent resolution 43

on -- and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 43, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the capitol grounds, the rotunda of the capitol and emancipation hall in the capitol visitors' center for events surrounding the visit of his holiness pope francis to the united states capitol. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks or furget consideration of h.r. 2028. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 218, the chair declares the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2028. will the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house in the state of the union for further consideration for h.r. 2028, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016 and for other purposes.

the chair: when the committee of the whole on wednesday, april 29 2015, a request for recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock had been postponed and the bill had been read from page 22, line 7. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. heck of nevada, insert increased by $75 million, page 25, lines 13 and 16 after each dollar amount insert reduced to zero dollars. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 223, the gentleman from nevada, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada. mr. heck: my amendment builds on the committee's work to promote scientific research and development within the department of energy. congress passed the nuclear waste policy act and technology and scientific knowledge have evolved significantly. congress clings to outdated policy prescriptions to address today's nuclear waste issues. dumping our nuclear queas in a hole and hoping for the best is a 20th century solution. we must encourage the use of 21st century technology to address this issue. my amendment eliminates the money ear marked for yucca mountain and increases funding for the nuclear energy university program within d.o.e. so we can better support our scientists and universities as they work to develop a solution

to this problem. this amendment decreases budget authority by $75 million and has no net impact on budget outlays. the nuclear energy university program is authorized and the energy policy act of 2005. pursuant to these authorities d.o.e.'s office allocates up to 20% to university-based programs and missions supporting r&d infrastructure improvements each year. the funds will be used by the office of nuclear energy to support the nuclear energy university program to research and develop ways to reduce nuclear waste and reduce spent nuclear fuel and provide a 21st century solution to our nuclear waste. grants provided through the nuclear energy university program to the university of nevada's program maintains a world class program at unlv that

is working to reduce the toxicity of nuclear waste. the technology available to students at nunchl unlv is so advanced that scientists working at the national laboratories use the facilities at unlv to conduct experiments. strengthening and supporting the research and innovations already taking place at unlv to solve our nation's nuclear waste problem is a much wiser investments of federal resources than the flawed yucca mountain proposal. instead of continuing the outdated, one state must lose for 49 states to win approach, why don't we invest in development and technology for every state to win. for nevada and other states, the 21st century proposal has the potential to have new r&d jobs by reaching new capabilities. time to stop subscribing to

ideas that waste taxpayer resources by trying to sweep our nuclear waste problems under an expensive rug and develop solutions that will make our country a leader in the field of nuclear energy once again. embrace the future of nuclear waste disposal and support my amendment and restore the united states' role in science and technology development and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. . for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: thank you madam chairman i appreciate the gentleman's amendment and offering the amendment and i appreciate his point of view and where -- and why he's offering it, but this amendment would eliminate $150 million for the department of energy to reorganize nies the response team and get the yucca mountain

licensing team back on track and running. yucca mountain is the law of the land. you have to remember that. yucca mountain is the law of the land even though the administration has failed to follow that law. it has seen overwhelming support in countless number of votes and countless number of times in the house and only permanent repository option we have on the table. this amendment would put in jeopardy more than $15 billion, let me repeat that, more than $15 billion that has been spent so far on this program. once the yucca mountain application is finished, all members in this body and the senate will have the opportunity to decide whether to construct and use the facility. but killing the process at this point i think is shortsided and i urge a no vote on this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 22, line 8 fossil energy research and development, $605 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ellis son, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $45 million. page 57 line 11, after the dollar amount insert increased by $45 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223 the gentleman

from minnesota and member opposed will be recognize the for five minutes. mr. ellison: my amendment is simple and straightforward. it's designed to reduce wasteful spending which i think we all would like to do around here. this year, republican appropriators increased tax funder-funded fossil fuel research and development by $45 million above the president's request. my amendment will simply reduce the funding for the office of fossil fuels by $45 million down to the president's requested level. and then dedicate these funds to the spending reduction account, which is something that i think all of us want to do, given how much we talk about wasteful spending and debt reduction around here. the five most profitable oil companies, exxonmobil, shell chevron, bp and con echo phillips made more than a

trillion in profits the last decade. i think that's pretty good. fossil fuels are reaping $550 billion in subsidies, four times the amount of $120 billion paid out. so fossil fuels are not getting the short trip. air pollution from fossil fuels cost money. nationwide, the hidden health costs of electricity generated by fossil fuels adds up to as much as $896 billion annually or 6% of gross domestic product. i'm from minnesota and i live in north minneapolis and i can tell you, madam chair, the children there suffer greater rates of asthma than the rates of the state partially as a result of emissions of vehicles that run on fossil fuels. climate change costs money. it will make our costs go up.

it will increase demand for electricity and this will make it necessary for construction of up to 95 gigawas. residential and commercial ratepayers will pay $12 billion more year and pell in coastal communities could pay as much as $35 billion within the next 15 years because of sea-level rise and hurricane activity. conclusion, let's lower the deficit. let's cut wasteful spending. let's stop wasting taxpayer money on dirty fossil fuel resources that costs a lot more in the long-term. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: i thank the chairman for the time. it is almost humorous to listen

to someone who wants to reduce the deficit and put this money into the deficit reduction account but then complains that we are following sequestration and too low and too crazy. we ought to be able to spend more money. the reality is it's not that the deficit reduction account but out of the fossil fuel program which is more than what the president recommended. the administration has priorities and congress has priorities. this bill reflects the priorities of the subcommittee and the full committee that brought it to the floor. the amendment would reduce funding by $45 million in favor of deficit spending. fossil fuel such as coal, oil, natural gas provide nearly 85% of the energy used by the nation's homes and businesses. fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas provide nearly 85% of the energy used by the

nation's homes and businesses. and will continue to provide for the majority of our energy needs for the foreseeable future. the bill rejects the administration's reduction, particularly the drastic cuts to the coal program, which is cut by $31 million and funds these programs at $605 million. with this additional funding, the office of fossil energy will target research into how water can be efficiently used and how coal can be used to produce electric power and how to capture and store carbon from our abunt dant natural resources. this amendment would reduce funding for a program to ensure we use our fossil fuel resources as cleanly as possible. and let me repeat, fossil fuel such as coal, oil and natural gas provide nearly 85% of the

energy used by our nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the majority of our energy needs in the foreseeable future. i must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so. mr. ellison: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. ellison: certainly we can get together. i mean the fact is we should be trying to reduce the deficit where we can particularly when we are talking about industries that have combined profits of a trillion dollars, a trillion. i do not think my constituents in the fifth congressional district of minnesota need to foot the bill for r&d for the five oil companies. they should pay their own r&d if they are banking money just like that. they are doing just fine and

don't need more taxpayer's dou gh. we give them $550 billion a year in subsidies. isn't that enough? can't they live with a little less given they are making trillion dollars in combined profits and giving them $550 billion in subsidies and want more and cannot deal with $45 million less than we are giving them already. i got to tell you, i just got a feeling if they don't get this extra money, they will be fine. i feel chevron and shell will somehow make it if they don't get our american taxpayers' $45 million. i urge a strong yes in favor of this amendment for deficit reduction and end a little bit of corporate welfare. and i do yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the question -- the gentleman from idaho. the chair: you have 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. simpson: the reality is exxonmobil all the other companies, they don't get this money. this money goes into research, research that fuels 85% of the electrical needs in this country. research. now, you could also say if you are going to do that why not take all the money that goes into renewable energy research or wind power or into solar power or into nuclear power or any of the other research that we do? it's just that some people can't fathom the fact that 85% 85%, that's getting close to 100% that 85% of our energy is produced by fossil fuel. so while the gentleman talks about deficit reduction the reality is i think he wants to

take money out of the fossil fuel research account and i will be interested in deficit reduction, how the vote comes later on on the republican budget that will be before the house later on. i will be watching that very closely and i appreciate that and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. ellison: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pusuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 22 line 23, naval petroleum and oil shale reserves $17,500,000.

strategic petroleum reserve $ 1 ,230,000. northeast home heating oil reserve, $7,600,000. energy administration, $117,000. nondefense environmental cleanup, $229,139,000. decontamination fund $625 million. science. $5,100,000,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read. report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flores of texas, page 25, line 5 after the dollar amount insert increased by

$205,000,000. page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $240,000,000. pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. flores: thank you, madam chair. i rise to offer an important amendment that ensures that the nuclear regulatory commission is appropriately funded to meet its core mission. the n.r.c.'s work is vital to our nation and safety remains and will always be the number one priority. it's funded in two ways, 10% from appropriated funds from the taxpayer and secondly, 90% of the fees are collected from the nuclear industry. while i'm a strong supporter of nuclear power and safety, the

n.r.c. budget has grown dramatically in the last decade from $669 million per year in 2005 to the current level of over $1 billion this year. herein lies the problem. this chart lays out the picture that we face today with the n.r.c. under the n.r.c.'s 2005 budget, there were 3,108 employees responsible for oversight on 104 reactors and the review of 1,500 licensing actions. in the fiscal year 2016 budget request of $1.032 billion, they called for $3, 62 employees to oversee 100 reactors and reviewed 900 applications. the number of reactors is down, the number of licensing actions is down by 40%, the number of employees has gone up by 21% and the budget has grown by 54%. madam chair only in washington does the staff and the cost grow while the work load goes down.

the historical increases in both funding and staff resources occurred in anticipation of a nuclear renaissance for or country. unfortunately the work never materialized. thus a shrinking nuclear industry has faced an ever-growing regulators over the last 10 years. only in washington does the bureaucracy grow while the work load shrinks. the nuclear regulatory commission admits it needs to downsize. in its report entitled "project aim 2020," they said the same thing. they have 60 rule makings under way and are existing -- collecting fees from existing revenues. these fees are paid by hardworking american families in their electricity bill. my eafment will reduce spending

by 2.5% and right size the nuclear regulatory commission. 90% of the support would be reduced by $2.5 million. and the federal share would be directed to basic research and d.o.e.'s office of science to develop future american energy solutions. madam chair in the last few minutes i've had the opportunity to have great discussions with chairman simpson and i'm confident he's aware of this issue and has taken steps to do this and he said he would work with me in the future to continue addressing this issue. so i'm raising this today but i'm withdrawing my amendment. i would like to thank chairman simpson for his efforts to address this issue and for agreeing to work with me on the issue and i ask for unanimous consent to withdraw -- mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition though i'm not opposed.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: i want to thank the gentleman for being doggedly on this issue. the n.r.c., some of the commissioners, we had a great hearing with all the commissioners of the n.r.c. and they also understand this concern. it was the aim project 2020 that they put together that realize they have too many staff. they want to do it in a responsible way. in the full committee we adopted an amendment to reduce their budget by $25 million. that's in addition to the fact that they had carryover funds they could have spent last year that they won't have available this year system of their budget is going down. whether it's the right amount or not, we don't know yet. but we are going to keep on this because we want them a, to re-establish their credibility in the world. they need to do that because they are a regulatory agency that's very important and they do incredibly important work. so we're going to be holding hearings again on this next year when we do their budget next year to make sure they're following through on their

commitment to reduce their size and scope and particularly the rule making authority that they've got out there. many people believe they're writing far too many rules and some believe it's because they have too many employees. i appreciate the gentleman offering this amendment and the discussion and offering to withdraw the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. flores: before i yield back i yield to the gentlelady from highway. ms. kaptur: i would just say to the author of the amendment from texas that i come from a part of the country where the nuclear regulatory commission did not do its job for a long time and i appreciate what you're attempting to do and all i would say is coming from a region where we have serious infractions that put human life at risk, more than once as you look at that budget and try to

improve it do not assume whatever levels of regulation existed in the past were appropriate. because in many cases they were shortchanged and inadequate so as you move forward in this important arena, i would urge you to look at the places in the country where mistakes happened and figure out why. and then direct resources so where they're most important in this very important technology. i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. flores: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. flores: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection the gentleman withdraws his amendment. the committee will rise informally to receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the

house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. foster of illinois. page 25, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $239,749,000. page 29, line , after the dollar amount insert reduced by $239, 49,000. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant --

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223 the gentleman from illinois and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. foster: madam chairman i rise today to offer an amendment to address an imbalance in our efforts to promote the long-term economic and national security interests of the united states. this appropriations bill would underfund the office of science by almost $240 million below the president's request for the next fiscal year. my amendment would correct this by bringing the office of science account up to the president's request level. investments in the d.o.e. office of science and its laboratories have supported american innovation and discovery, science at the forefront of physical sciences and engineering. it's impossible and unwise to ignore the value of our national labs. they have helped answer fundamental questions on how the universe works, supported breakthroughs in fields as diverse as medicine and astron my and development in industry

that drive our economy. investments in our labs have enabled our scientists to discover new particles including quarks and the higgs boson. physicists have used their fundamental research to develop new technologies, including the pet scan used every day to treat patients diagnosed with cancerous tumors. the office of science has also supported the training of scientists and engineers for more than 60 years. we need to maintain a competitive advantage now more than ever. while the u.s. is reducing investments in federal r&d, europe and asia have been increasing investments. in 1968, we spent 9.1% of the budget on research and development and today we are spending only .6%. if this trend continues, it won't be long before china's

investments in r&d will far outpace our own. the office of science is not only an important investment in our future, it's a valuable investment in our economy. our national labs and the major user facilities housed at those labs are some of the greatest tools we have to offer researchers and industry. they are also important contributors to the local economy. the economic impact of argon and fermilab in illinois is estimated to be more than $1.3 billion annually. those who seek to underfund and eliminate federal programs often say the private sector can do it better but when it comes to fundamental scientific research, that simply is not an option. the office of science is responsible for building and maintaining research facilities which many private companies rely on but are far too big for any single business or university to develop. these user facilities such as the advanced foe ton source at

ar gone national laboratory -- at ar gone national laboratory -- at argon national lab rah tear. for example, eli lilly conducts more than half of their reserge at the advanced photon source at argon. but the funding cuts in this bill will threaten that and other brodgets. at a time of economic stress we must continue to develop the next generation of american technical work force. as other world powers are growing and challenging our position as the global leader in science and innovation, we cannot let the number of american scientists and researchers or the quality of their research facilities diminish. bringing the office of science budget up to the president's request is crucial to maintaining that quality. i would also like to briefly discuss the offset, which is the nmsa's weapons activities account. it is important for us to recognize that we need to strike the right balance between defending our country today and

investing in scientific research for the future. i would argue that maintaining an advantage as the global leader in science and technology makes us much more secure than amassing and maintaining excessive numbers of nuclear weapons. mr. speaker, madam speaker i rise today because we must continue to invest in american innovation and fully fund the research and development conducted with the d.o.e. office of science. but i understand that the majority party has the power to block that funding. and that there will be a point of order pending against this amendment system of with that, i ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection. the amendment is withdrawn. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 25, line 9 nuclear waste, $150 million.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? ms. titus: i have an amendment at the desk the clerk: amendment offered by ms. titus of nevada. reduced by $150 million. page 57, line 11 after the dollar amount insert increased by $150 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223, the the gentlewoman from nevada and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. titus: i come to the floor on behalf of the people of nevada to reject the failed policies of the past and concentrate our efforts on real solutions to the nation's energy challenges. the bill before us properties $150 million for the failed

yucca nuclear waste project. taxpayer-funded junkets and photo ops cannot change the fact that this has never been based on sound science but politics. after decades squandered and $15 billion wasted, we are no closer to a solution than when president reagan signed the screw nevada bill in 1988. the house is set to consider legislation that will waste millions more on this failed project. i have heard my colleagues say this is the law of the land. the a.c.a. is the law of the land and that hadn't stopped them trying to overturn it 57 times. furthermore, it appears that this is the so-called law of the land, the interpretation of that law is pretty flexible. i want to my my colleagues' attention to a particular line in this bill that properties $5

million to support yucca mountain. this creates a slush fund in return for their support of this failed project. i don't anticipate that many of my colleagues are as familiar with the nuclear waste policy act as we are in nevada but the law states that any benefits that the federal government may appropriate can only be provided through mutual agreement between the federal government and the states. last time i checked, the republican governor, not the house appropriations committee, is the chief executive of the state of nevada and he strongly opposes yucca mountain. i would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an op ed written by the governor and titled yucca mountain unsafe science won't ever be safe. the chair: the gentlewoman's request will be covered by general leave. ms. titus: the committee's report language cites that this hush money is provided for local governments that give formal

consent. this raises yet another question about the intent of this. the law does not outline any process for giving formal consent. so how would the newly bribed localities be able to provide that consent? if you are looking for consent, i urge you to support h.r. 1364, nuclear waste informed consent act, which i introduced along with congressman heck and senators reid and heller, this bipartisan legislation sets out a formal consent process so nevada, texas or new mexico or any other state in affected local communities or tribe that chooses to host a nuclear waste deposit tower will have a process by which it can give consent for citing by the federal government. no one should face what we faced in nevada by having this pushed down our throats. i would ask unanimous consent to

submit to the record two articles outlining nuclear waste storage proposals that are supported in the state of texas and state of new mexico. the chair: the gentlewoman's request will be covered by general leave. ms. titus: i would say madam chairman instead of wasting tens of millions dollars more on an unworkable solution let's meet our future obligations to future generations. let us commit to moving forward on a new policy to address the nation's nuclear waste, one that relies on a consent-based approach. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a message that congress will not continue to move backwards but will take serious action to address our nation's nuclear waste policy. and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition?

mr. simpson: claim time in opposition of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i understand the lady's passion for this, but some of the rhetoric isn't accurate when she calls it a failed policy. it is a failed policy because this administration came into the office on a promise of not doing yucca mountain because they needed votes from the state of nevada. we spent over $15 billion on this project and it is the law of the land. and until you change that law, it remains the law of the land. whether it's safe or not, i don't know. i'm not a scientist. i think there are 52 national academy of sciences studies on all sorts of aspects. this is the most studied piece of earth on the earth. in fact, i suggested during a hearing with the department that if we ultimately decide not to do yucca mountain, they shouldn't close it down because

they need a space that big to put the papers from all the studies we have done on yucca mountain. that's the reality. we understand my colleague's opposition to yucca mountain. i don't blame her. she's from nevada, but i can't support this amendment. this amendment would eliminate $150 million for the department of energy to reorganize nies its response team and get the yucca mountain licensing team back up and running and $15 billion spent on this program will truly have been wasted. once that application is finished, all members of this body, all members of this body and the senate will have the opportunity to decide whether to move forward to construct the facility but killing the process at this moment would be shortsided. i urge a no vote on this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from nevada is recognized. ms. titus: thank you very much,

madam chairman. and i appreciate the comments made by my colleague but he does not address the points that i make about how this amendment looks at provisions of the bill that are contrary to the proposal. i urge a no vote. there is no point in throwing good money after bad. american taxpayers deserve a wiser expenditure of their dollars and those areas that want to have a site in their state or community should have a chance to be considered. i urge a no vote. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. simpson: madam chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: move to strike the last word.

it's my pleasure to yield the time to the gentleman, the vice chairman of the energy and water appropriations committee the gentleman from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam chairman, i would like to thank the appropriations committee and the chairman for acting to impose greater discipline on the nuclear regulatory commission. we know that the future of nuclear power in the united states depends on having a credible nuclear safety regulator and depends on the industry continuing to perform at a high level of safety. we feel strongly that the agency must continue its core mission of protecting the public, health and safety, but the n.r.c. must do so in a manner that does not add to the economic headwinds that the industry faces. thanks to the scientific breakthroughs and renewed interest in nuclear interest we have the opportunity to develop new sources of power that can

provide affordable and reliable energy. i hope that the n.c. -- n.r.c. can fulfill its mission to ensure public safety. i support the committee's direction to require the rule -making process to be commission driven in order to provide greater discipline, transparency, efficiency and accountability. i yield back. mr. simpson: i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 25, line 21 advanced research projects $280 million. the chair: the gentleman from california seek to be recognized. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. swalwell of california, page 25, line 25, after the dollar amount insert inscreesed by $25 million. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 223, the gentleman from california, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes and the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. swalwell: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. swalwell: i rise to offer an amendment on before of mr. schiff of california and mr. polis of colorado, which would increase funding for the advanced research project energy . mr. schiff offered the same exact amendment last year and passed the house with bipartisan support. i hope the house will vote in support of it again. like the house's mark last year, the underlying bill provides $280 million, which is $45 million below the president's request. this amendment would increase funding by $20 million with the offset taken from the department administration. i would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for providing level funding, which

is a substantial improvement from last year which cut the program by as much as 80%. however, rather than providing flat funding, we should be stepping up our commitment to a potentially dame-changing research program and that's what this amendment does. this is a very modest investment for an agency whose work is helping to reshape our economy. while the amendment would leave us short passing it would send a strong signal that there is bipartisan support for this kind of research. started in 2009, it is a revolutionary program that advances high potential high impact energy technologies that are too early for private sector investment. the projects have the potential to radically improve u.s. economic security, national security, environmental well-being as well. arp-e has funding technical assistance and market readiness

and moddled after the highly defense agency or darpa which has ground-breaking inventions, most notably, the internet itself. a key element of both agencies is that managers are limited to fixed term so new blood revitalizes. we must not weaken those programs that are vital to our economic future and national security. and it is such an agency. even if we can't make it what the president has called for, we don't need to hinder an agency that is pointing the way to energy-secure future. it's an economic imperative and health concern and environmental necessity. investing wisely in this type of research is the direction we should be going on as a nation. we want to lead the energy revolution and don't want to see this go to china.

if we are serious about staying at the forefront, we must invest in the cutting-edge work. by providing the funding i'm recommending today, we will send a clear signal to remain world leaders. i urge the adoption of this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: claim time in opposition to the amendment. charkte the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: i claim time reluctantly. i think they do good work. my biggest problem is as i said last night on either the first or second amendment that was offered to this bill, they took money out of departmental administration to fund something and another one to take something out of the department of administration. so far we have taken $50 million out of a $24245 million budget.

and it's easy to vote that way, because who wants to pay for the the administrative costs but yet we have to deal with that when we get into conference to make sure they have adequate funding for the administrative work. at some point in time, i have to say i can't support to continue taking money out of the department of administration -- departmental administration in order to fund a variety of programs even though some of them may be very worthwhile. while i'm not opposed and think they do some good work the reality is you have to balance this bill. we have arpa-e down to $266 million from what it was last year and substantially below what the president requested but we had other priorities that we had to fund. and the other thing i had to consider is that science and

technology committee, the authorizing committee that does much of this work, has marked up a bill in their committee that substantially reduces the overall funding authorization for arpa-e so that causes me some concern. while i may or not agree with their markup, we'll see when it hits the floor. that's the reason i'm going to oppose this amendment. other than that, i understand what the gentleman is trying to do. but i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back. . the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. swalwell: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.

the clerk will read. the clerk: page 26, line 3 title 17 innovative technology loan guarantee program sums derived from amounts received from borrowers pursuant to the energy policy act of 2005. advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan program, $6

million to remain available until september 30, 2017. departmental administration, $ 247,420,000 to remain available until september 30, 2017. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount insert, reduced by $1 million, increase by $1 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223 the gentlewoman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairwoman. let me begin by thanking the chairman, mr. simpson, and the ranking member, ms. kaptur, for the work that they have done. very challenging and popular appropriations when it comes to

energy and water and also the issues of the environment. i have a very simple amendment that reinforces our commitment to communities from rural america to urban america, from ham lets and villages to -- hamlets and villages to large urban centers. it emphasizes that the quality of life for all americans to have a good, clean environment, to reduce asthma in children, to help senior citizens and to have a good quality of life in their sunset years, in their older homes in older communities, of which i represent, is an important funding necessity for this nation. i want to emphasize the work that has been done and remind my colleagues, for those of us who had the privilege of being here noted that president clinton -- clinton issued an executive order directing federal agencies to address the

disproportionately high adverse human health on minority and low income populations, which covered rural america. who oftentimes experience the impact of the environment. and we have worked over the years to improve their quality of life. and today i ask that we continue to do so. in particular i want to refer to a project in houston, texas called the c.a.s. site. that site was attempted to be cleaned up. it's an older neighborhood, mr. chairman. senior citizens own their homes. they have been there for a long time. there's been a lot of talk about this entity -- machinations about this entity that is espousing chemicals leaking chemicals, because it is old and closed down and abandoned. we had to call upon the environmental justice sector in

the federal government to provide the lefpk raj to help these senior citizens -- leverage to help these senior citizens. people who did not want to move their homes. i walked those streets, went into the backyards of senior citizens and saw the seepage coming out of the ground and as welcoming in from the property that backsided. environmental justice is a good thing. and it is through those efforts that we're working with the eduardo: to give hope to these citizens that they can stay in their homes. i live in the energy capital of the world. it is a job creator. but on occasions, in the midst of our wetlands and our areas of pristine, if you will, environmental asset we have some ups and downs. just recently i flew over the houston port at the time of a spillage that was impacting on some of our most environmentally important

areas. included wetlands and areas protected or important to the environment and to the quality of life. so i'm asking that the jackson lee amendment be accepted for the importance of providing for the continued support of environmental justice and equality for areas that are both urban and both rural. let me finish by making this statement, madam chair. this is an important cause because, as we look the funds that are dealing with environmental justice, they increase youth involvement through science, technology, engineering and math. and they also help to promote clean energy weatherization, cleanup, as et revitalization, and they have -- asset revitalization, and they help my constituents and the constituents of so many in this body whose older neighborhoods are sometimes impacted by older

entities that are left behind in the neighborhood where seniors continue to live. i want to be able to walk those enableds and make sure that my seniors -- walk those neighborhoods and make sure that my seniors can stay in those homes, small frame homes, and that they'll have the quality of life that all of us would like. again, i want to thank the chairman and ranking member. this is a tough job to do and i'd like to emphasize the importance of the funding for environmental justice and helping continue, if you will, to put focus and emphasis on quality of life for homeowners, seniors and people living in rural america and urban america. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 28, line 10, office of the inspector general, $46 million to remain available until september 30, 2017. atomic energy defense activities, national nuclear security administration, weapons activities, $8, 713,000,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i move that 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: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 228, directs me to report that had has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the committee reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 228 and has come to no -- to no resolution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> pursuant to house resolution

231, i call up the conference report on senate concurrent resolution 11, establishing the congressional budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2016, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025. mr. price: and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 11, concurrent resolution setting forth congressional budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 231, the conference report is considered read, the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, let me begin by thanking everyone involved in getting us to this moment where we have an agreement between the house and the senate budget conferees on a joint balanced

budget proposal before the congress. all members of our committee and the conference committee and their staffs should be commended for their hard work and i want to commend specifically the staff directors on both sides of the aisle. rick and tom made certain their respective members were prepared for the activity we've gone through over the past four months. we are set, mr. speaker, to adopt the first balanced budget of this kind in over a decade. that's important not only from an historical perspective but also for what it says about this congress' commitment to doing the work that the american people sent us here to do. to get it done. to move forward. with positive solutions for a healthier economy and a stronger more secure nation. what we have before us today mr. speaker, is a budget that balances within 10 years without raising taxes. reduces spending over $5

trillion over that period of time which will not only get washington's fiscal house in order, but paving the way for stronger economic growth, more jobs and more opportunity. it invests in our nation's priorities ensures a strong national defense and saves and strengthens and protects important programs like medicare and social security. mr. speaker, i know our friends on the other side of the aisle, we'll hear from them and they may have a difference of opinion, and if passed as pro -- past is prolong, -- prologue, we're bound to hear from them. they'll say our budget will, in their words, quote, hurt the middle class unquote. that statement bears no resemblance to reality, mr. speaker. . the policies of president obama that led to the worst economic recovery. stagnant wages underwheeling growth in our economy and the

economy grew in the first quarter by ..2%. there is a reason for that. we need to get the economy rolling. the best thing we can get for the middle class is get our economy turned around soy more jobs are being created and more dreams being realized. guess what, mr. speaker? our budget does that. more effective and more accountable, lifting the regime off the jobs -- backs and american companies can better compete more effectively in the global economy. by doing all of that the congressional budget office tells us that we will bring in deficits and lower government spending, which will have a positive long-term-impact on the economy as well as the budget. benefits like increases in the

pool of national savings and investment, which would allow for more growth and job creation and more economic security. our friends on the other side of the aisle, they are fond of attacking our efforts to save, strengthen and protect programs like medicare, medicaid and social security. why some folks here in washington would be willing to let these programs go bankrupt is beyond me. medicare and social security are going broke. that's not according to me but the trustees of the programs. medicaid is not working for patients or the doctors who would like to be able to serve them. the status quo is unsustainable and doing nothing is un defensible. we have to save these programs for the sake of beneficiaries and future generations and our budget does just that. further, our budget prioritizes the safety and security of the american people, channeling important resources to our men and women in uniform. we do so in a responsible way,

in a manner consistent with current law and without allowing further across the board cuts in defense spending. there are those who criticize on how we do that and i respect their opinion, but we are faced with largely complex national security threats and we need to find a way to move forward to ensure those protecting our lives and freedom have the support and training that they need. i look forward to an open and honest debate about the vision we put forward to get our nation's fiscal house in order, to strengthen our nation's defenses and to ensure a healthier economy for all americans, because that's exactly what this budget agreement does. i urge my colleagues to support the agreement. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i rise in strong opposition to this budget conference report. i do agree with the gentleman on

one issue, which is the staff of the budget committee on both sides, republican and democrat, have worked very hard. mr. speaker, i have to say that the product that is brought before us today is the wrong direction for america. we began with a house budget that was wrong for america. we went to conference with the senate budget. it was wrong for america. so it's not surprising, but it is still disappointing that we come to the floor today with a budget that's wrong for america. why do i say that? well, look we are entitled to our opinions, but we don't get to make up our own facts. and the reality is, according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the folks who are referees in this house and this congress, where people have competing opinions, they have said that this republican budget will slow down the economy over the next couple of years.

it's right here on page 3 of their report. real g.n.p., real economic growth per person will be lower by .6% under the specific paths than under the baseline 2016 to 2018 c.b.o. budget estimates. let's translate that. what that means is that compared to what would happen in the economy without the republican budget if we didn't have this this will make things worse. this will slow down economic growth. this means less economic growth per person in the united states of america. that's not me saying it, that's the nonpartisan budget experts saying it. so it's going to slow down economic growth, although we have good news, some good news in the economy, right? we have seen month after month of positive economic growth. we would like to see the economy

grow faster and grow stronger, but we have seen over 61 consecutive months positive economic growth. why in the world would we want a budget that in the next couple of years slows down that economic growth, according to the congressional budget office? it gets worse than that, because one of the chronic problems we have seen in our economy, mr. speaker, over the last many years, not just two or three or four, but over decades is this phenomenon where americans are working harder than ever, they are more productive than ever, but their paychecks are flat, their take-home pay is flat. so you have rising and working productivity people working harder than ever but not translating into higher wages and benefits. you know back about 30, 40 years ago, we had a chart with rising worker productivity and guess what else was rising with it?

worker wages. last 30 years, we have seen people working harder than ever, productivity is going up, but wages for most americans have been pretty flat in real terms. the gain of that increase in worker productivity has flowed to folks at the very top end of the economic ladder. and god bless them, but why would we want to bring a budget to the floor of the house that squeezes even tighter and harder the people who are working hard every day and not seeing their paychecks go up? how does their budget make life harder for most americans? first of all, it increases taxes on working families. they get rid of the bum up in the child tax credit. they get rid of the strengthening of the earned income tax credit. they eliminate entirely the college deduction that helps

families afford college in this era of high tuition rates. they eliminate the at affordable care act tax care credits meaning millions won't be able to access affordable care. students, they start charging students higher interest rates on their loans. right now, a student in college doesn't have to pay interest on their loan while they're in college. our republican colleagues apparently think a trillion dollars of student debt is not enough. they want to charge them more. it's a fact under this budget. seniors, they want to re-open the prescription drug doughnut hole. it's not a secret. as a result, seniors with high prescription drug costs on

medicare will be paying lots more and paying higher co-pays for preventive health care under this republican budget. so working families, students seniors, all squeezed even tighter. i'll tell you who is not squeezed at all under this budget folks at the very top. this budget green lights the romney-ryan tax plan. what does that plan propose? let's cut the top tax rate for millionaires by a third, a third. take it down from 39% to 28%, 25% range. that's who gets a big break in their tax rates. so while they're cutting tax rates for folks at the very top, what else are they cutting? they're cutting our kids' education and cutting

investments in science and research like n.i.h., cutting modernizing our infrastructure, which helps power our economy. why? because they are cutting the portion of the budget we use to make those investments by 40% below the lowest level as a share of the economy since we have been keeping records, in the 1950's. that is a disinvestment in america. so they are cutting those investments. i tell you what they don't cut, they don't cut one special interest tax break to help reduce the deficit, not one penny. apparently that corporate jet tax deduction, they need it. apparently that special tax rate for hedge fund managers, they really need it because they don't want to eliminate any of those to reduce the deficit, but they want to increase taxes on working families and cut our

investment in education. and here's the sad part about it mr. speaker. after all that, it still doesn't balance. not by a long shot. here's the chart. sorry we have to go through this math so many times but i will tell you that the current chairman of the senate budget committee, senator enzi talked about this budget accounting scam that is at the heart of the republican budget and heart of the claim that they have a balanced budget because you see they claim that at the end of the 10-year window -- they also say they are eliminating the affordable care act. but guess what? the budget relies on the same level of revenue as the affordable care act. so if you get rid of the

affordable care act and those receive news, you aren't close to balance. i apologize, mr. speaker. i tell you what else it doesn't take into account. the tax provisions. you may recall mr. speaker, that we had on this floor, about 10 days ago a republican proposal to eliminate the estate tax for estates over $10 million. that was the overwhelming economic priority of our republican colleagues, to get rid of the estate tax for states over $10 million 5,500 people in this country per year. you can put more people on a big cruise ship. that added about $260 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. guess what?

wasn't accounted for in the republican budget. and if you did account for that and the other tax cut measures for special interests that are being brought to the floor, it's even further out of balance. this is just "alice in wonderland" accounting. we should be going back to the drawing board. we haven't talked about the whole sort of shell game with the o.c.o. account, which is having an impact on appropriations bills here in the house because our republican colleagues are doing the exact opposite what they said we should do last year. read the republican own budget conference committee report. let me close with respect to veterans, because the reality is that the first bill coming to the floor based on this budget conference report for veterans and military construction, the veterans of foreign wars says

it's bad for veterans. it has a lower amount for our veterans than in the president's proposal. so we believe we should be true to the values and priorities of this country. and we don't think that means giving folks at the very top millionaires and others cuts in their tax rates while disinvesting in the rest of america. i must strongly oppose this budget conference committee report, because it really does take america down the wrong path and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i yield three minutes to the vice chairman of the budget committee, mr. rokita. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rokita: i thank chairman price for his leadership.

i thank my colleagues. robust discussion and debate. but we come out of those lates nights, those long hours with the product here today. and the product here today unfortunately is a more rare product than it should be. you see, mr. speaker, for the first time since 2001, 14 years, we have a balanced joint budget resolution. bicameral. and as a relatively new person to this chamber, in my fifth year, you think about why that's the case. unfortunately you have to conclude that most of the time we're talking about the demagoguery. some of which we just heard.

half the story so to speak, what's really going on here. if we would have full, honest discussions about where this country really needs to go, where the federal government needs to go in terms of improving its debt, deficit picture, the whole budget picture, you'd really see that the economy in this country could be better off with those honest full discussions. this budget, for example, does balance in less than 10 years without raising taxes. without raising taxes. the gentleman very much knows -- the chair: the gentleman from indiana controls the time. mr. rokita: the gentleman very much knows that the budget committee doesn't write tax predescriptions. it's the ways and means committee. but we say in our budget document, the ways and means committee should get on with the business of tax reform. what the congressional budget office that the gentleman mentioned says is that over the 10-year window of this budget

agreement, the economy will grow $400 billion. that's hardly a contraction. $400 billion, at least to some of us, is a lot of money and that's great for economic growth. this budget agreement does that. see what i mean, mr. speaker. by the whole story? it also ensures a strong national defense making sure that our troops have the money they need but remain accountable to the money that's given. it gives us a chance to repeal in full taxes -- in full, taxes and all, obamacare, and allows us a chance to start over with patient-centered health reform. hasn't been done, we haven't had that chance in a long time. you see obamacare mr. speaker, is an expensive proposition and we're seeing more and more proof of that every day. strengthens medicare for the

future without county affecting those near retirement now. this is important. some of us, for my friends on the conservative side have looked at the press reports and found, hey, we've given up on medicare, absolutely is not, nor for social security. these are the drivers of our debt, mr. speaker. our budget language remains in tact. the fact of the matter is this conference committee report in knew merrickly driven -- is numerically driven, not policy driven. for everyone, this is what's driving our debt. these pieces of the pie that are all attached together. whether social security, medicare, medicaid or the interest we owe ourselves and others for the amount of money we're borrowing. our ideas for correcting this debt, the drivers of our debt, are still in place. and i call upon the authorizing committees whether it be energy and commerce ways and means, education and work force or other committee, to start

working on reforming this debt. this budget agreement mr. speaker, gives us the opportunity finally after 14 years, to start down that road. this is not a conclusion, this is the beginning and i ask my democratic friends to join us down that road. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd actually encourage all those authorizing committees to get to work trying to implement this budget so the american people can see just how bad it is and i would be curious as to whether they're actually going to do it in the couple months. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. ranking member. i rise in strong opposition to this budget. there's football and then there's fantasy football.

mr. ranking member, you are being very charitable when you use the word scam. this is a real lemon. by any stretch, and you'll have to use your imagination. this is a formula for another 2007-2008. this would be a duplication and the pain caused by those, that decade, that eight years of the 21st century, the budgets from 2001 to 2008 when we cut taxes in 2001 and we cut taxes in 2003, and then 2007 and 2008 the world fell apart. why? enormous loss of jobs, every month. look at the numbers. you want to hold up charts? hold them up. this agreement uses gimmicks to balance the budget and does so on the backs of the poor and

the middle class and senior citizens. it imposes its cuts on programs that assist low and modest income americans. even though they constitute those programs less than 1/4 of the federal spending. the republican plan would cause tens of millions of people to become uninsured or underinsured and i know how you're careful to even talk about that. in other words, if we're going to repeal the affordable care act, make sure you put in a sentence about what we need to do about those people who have preconditions. phony, phony phony. you said it. we didn't. slashing funding for education, for research, for infrastructure. wait until the bridges fall down and more people fall into the water. cuts to nutrition. cuts to health. that will only increase

poverty. your claims that this budget balances is a total farce. not a semifarce a total farce. congressman van hollen produced a very strong, fair budget. it was a strong budget it was dismissed. but i like it. i like it. i like it when we are seen as irrelevant. we do our best work. so that's what you got in front of you. this budget, while calling for a complete and total repeal of the affordable care act continues to assume the law's $2 trillion revenue. that's not a farce. that's fantasy football. how could you do that? the bills -- bill stinks but we'll use the money in the bill. explain that one.

one more minute. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: to me, when we get to taxes, this budget assumes that revenues remain unchanged from our current law. someone needs to have a conversation with the chairman of the ways and means. because he seems to be unaware. in fact, he stated explicitly that he doesn't think we should be using the current law baseline. he said it, i didn't. two weeks ago this same majority, and i end on this point, mr. speaker we passed $294.8 billion in unpaid for tax cuts -- tax breaks for paris hilton and ivanka trump and rest of that crowd and their fortune, enough to be left a nice inheritance. much of that money has never been taxed in the first place.

with that i yield back mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members will remember to address their remarks to the chair, not to other members of the body. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr. speaker. as i said when we talked about in the first time around, i said folks across this land, if they turn on the television and they take a look you got one parent yelling at the other. hide the dog and the cat and the kids, sweetheart, they're talking about the budget. the distortion and the misrepresentation that's coming from the other side, mr. speaker, it really is absolutely phenomenal. i am pleased to hear that the gentleman likes their budget. and i commend him for liking their budget. but let me just state for the record mr. speaker, that neither their budget nor the president's budget ever, ever, ever gets to balance. the american people can't live on borrowed money. the federal government ought not do so either. our budget gets to balance within a 10-year period of time, it does so without raising taxes. that's why the american people are going to appreciate the work that's being done right

here. i'm very, very pleased to yield three minutes to a member of our -- an incredibly productive member of our committee, a member of the conference committee, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. black: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, what a difference a year makes. since i came to congress in 2011, my house republican colleagues and i every year, to pass a responsible, timely budget that confronts our runaway spending in washington, but many while the senate democrats refuse to pass a budget during the four of the last five years. that ends now. this year our new american congress worked to pass a balanced budget in both the house and the senate and to then unify our budgets through regular order. i had the distinct privilege of serving on the budget conference committee and i'm pleased with the final product that we were able to deliver. this will mark the first

balanced budget, joint budget resolution, since 2002 and we get it without -- did it without raising taxes. we didn't stop there. this b erase the president's disastrous health care law, allowing us to start over on reforms that put patients and their doctors in charge, not washington bureaucrats. and we used the critical reconciliation tool to help to ensure an obamacare repeal bill that reaches the president's desk so that we can put him on record, forcing him to make a decision and defend that to the american people. once more, this plan supports the growth of $1.2 -- 1.2 million jobs over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office. mr. speaker, as has been said many times before, budgets aren't just a series of numbers. they are a statement of our

values. i believe the priorities found in this budget are shared by my constituents and reflect the values that we are all proud -- that we can all be proud of. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. we keeplarying this mathematical fantasy that somehow the republican budget balances. i just want to turn to an authority, he's the chairman, now chairman of the senate budget committee, and here's what he said last year. quote, one of the problems i've had with budgets that i've looked at is that they use a lot of gimmicks. now when there was an anticipation that obamacare would go away and that all of that money would still be there, that's not realistic. i'd like to see us get to a real accounting with the budget. guess what mr. speaker? the affordable care act is still here, the revenue is still here and the republican budget assumes that revenue for

the purpose of achieving balance at the same time they're getting rid of the affordable care act. that leaves people's heads spinning and it means the budget is not in balance. i'm now happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, a distinguished member of the budget committee, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for two minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you mr. speaker. i appreciate mr. van hollen yielding. we're talking a lot about gimmicks and even at the conservative financial times said the republicans had to resort to smoke and mirrors to make this budget balance. i want to talk about one of the other tricks that's used. what the republicans' budget uses is they do something called dynamic scoring. which basically allows to you project all sorts of -- probably at least speculative growth based on policies that they would anticipate doing. now, here's a real world example of that. this weekend is the kentucky derby. it would be as if somebody went out and said, i'm going to buy a 2-year-old for $2 million.

and then that 2-year-old i'm sure is going to win the kentucky derby, so i'm going to use that $3 million purse that horse is certainly going to win next year and i'm going to plug that in to my budget so my budget comes out ahead. yes, it could happen. but there's no evidence to believe it will happen. that's one of the ways that this budget reaches so-called balance. there are other macroeconomic effects which we ought to consider, however. as we've mentioned several times, this budget would direct the repeal of the affordable care act. a professional services firm just did an audit of kentucky's experience over the last 14 month, 15 months, with the affordable care act. here's what it said would happen in kentucky over the next six years. $30 billion in increased economic activity, $44,000 -- 44,000 new jobs and a positive impact on the kentucky state budget of $850 million.

that's what would be eliminated from kentucky, that's another effect of the republican budget. think about what it might do in other states california, new york, florida, in a state like kentucky to have that much impact, the national effect would be very consequential. so aside from all the truly damaging ways in which this budget effects our economy and our -- affects our economy and our citizens, we have to take note of the fact that there are impacts beyond just the federal budget and this budget would be a disaster for the american economy and the american people. i urge its defeat. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i yield three minutes to a productive and delightful member of our budget committee and a freshman member of our conference the gentleman from

michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized recognized. mr. moolenaar: the house and senate will adopt a unified resolution for a balanced budget. the 2016 federal budget resolution will start the guardrails for federal spending and is a step in the right direction for our country. families in my home state of michigan and across the country tighten their belts when there is a change in household income or expenses and washington needs to do the same. the 2016 budget resolution does not raise taxes on hardworking americans and keeps the promises that have been made to seniors while slowing the soaring national debt, leaving less debt to our children is vital and if we fail to act, debt payments will crowd out spending for the priorities of the american people, including national security and protecting the great lakes. this budget provides for flexibility and gives states the

opportunity to innovate on medicaid policy, allowing them to design a safety net that works best for those in need. this will move medicaid further away from marks bureaucrats and closer to the people it was meant to serve. this budget also calls for tax reform which has the potential to add one million new private sector jobs. the tax code is over 74,000 pages long and was last overhauled 29 years ago. it's time for a pro-h pro growth tax code that is simpler and fairer. this budget addresses our country's fiscal problems in a responsible way and puts a brighter path for our children and grandchildren. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i'm now pleased to yield three minutes to my

friend and colleague from maryland and the distinguished democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the democratic whip is recognized. mr. hoyer: i rise in opposition to this conference report. written by house and senate republicans alone. it reaffirms their commitment to a severe and unworkable policy agenda that would harm the economy and stands little chance of being implemented. this budget conference report draws heavily on house republicans' budget framework by eliminating the medicare guarantee, turning medicaid into a cap block grant limiting pell grants for college students and cutting knew trishon assistance while hiding $1 trillion in additional cuts behind a magic

asterisk to be filled in at some time in the future. these props if enacted would be disastrous and i would suspect even most republicans wouldn't vote to make them law and i predict they will not vote to make them law. still, many of the proposals must be taken very seriously. the republican budget report includes reconciliation instructions to fast track to repeal the affordable care act jeopardizing coverage for millions of americans, with no alternative in sight. it continues the republican policy of sequester for nondefense priorities this year, a disinvestment suggestion. and undermining of america. its economy and its quality of life.

and further limits our ability to invest in priorities like education, research and infrastructure by $496 billion below sequester levels. -- over the ensuing decade. this is the same sequester policy that the republican chairman of the appropriations committee called, and i quote unrealistic and ill conceived. let me repeat that. that's the republican chairman, hal rogers, kentucky, of the appropriations committee, said that the policies being pursued in this budget are unrealistic and ill conceived. he's right. and shamelessly they propose to do all of this while exempting defense spending from the sequester caps. defense spending needs to be raised. it ought to be raised honestly and not pretend some slush fund

will pay for not contingencies which it is intended to do but regular defense which we need to do. this conference report is essentially a work for fiction. proposal you will debated as a message to the republican base. so i urge my colleagues to defeat it and instead let us work together in a bipartisan way to replace the unrealistic and ill conceived and i would add -- may have 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: replace this unrealistic and ill conceived not my words but representative rogers' words and sequester caps that enables congress to invest in america's future growth and prosperity. that is what our constituents want. that's what we owe them, honesty and responsibility. i hope this resolution is

defeated. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i remind my friend that we look forward to enacting and bringing forward the policies that are incorporating within this budget and just last night, the armed services committee passed out on a 60-2 vote 60-2 vote policies that are consistent with the spending on the defense area in this budget. i yield to -- i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from south carolina, who is a wonderfully productive and energetic member of the budget committee, mr. sanford, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. ms. sanchez: you know, in watching -- mr. sanford: i'm reminded of the saying if you like sausage, don't watch it being made. same is true of the budget process and the legislative

process. it is an imperfect process, but what we have here is the house and senate coming together on the budget is something we haven't seen on a long, long while. we didn't see it while harry reid was running the senate and consequence of the house and senate coming we will go to 11:30 tonight and do that week after week after week going forward. i myself will come down with an amendment on energy and water. i suspect other members in this very chamber will come down with similar amendments saying we need to add something here or subtract something here. and that process of scrubbing the budget is something that has been absent for years. that process is called regular order, but regular folks back home would call it common sense because it's what they do every day. vital to running an organization

is the ability to go in and say this isn't working over here, i think we need to take from this low performer and it's done in churches, families and businesses and needs to be done in the federal government. as a matter of process is what we have is important for too long our federal government has been running on automatic pilot. domestic discretionary has been running on automatic pilot as we run on c.r.'s and omnibus bills. you would go bankrupt if you say i take what i spent last year and spend it this year and that's the way the federal government has been running and this budget moves us away from that process. i think it's also important in fairness to my democratic colleagues is this is important from the stand of democracy. when you have a c.r., it is often leadership and staff as

opposed to rank and file members going down to the floor saying we need to subtract here or adhere. two different levels. are there still deficiencies? obviously so. when you look at the budget cap issue, if you look at the issue of off-budget, those are pathways to oblivion. they have to be addressed. the bigger framework that has been set in place by moving in regular order with the house and senate coming together thanks to your leadership is vital and i will be supporting this measure. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, terrific new member of the budget committee mr. moulton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moulton: i rise today to express my opposition to the republican budget because of the way it treats our nation's

veterans. as i have said in the budget committee debate the republican proposal does not provide our past and present service members with the resources they need upon their return. protecting our veterans is not an option. it is our duty. we owe it to our veterans to provide them with quality health care, education and job training and long-term treatment they have earned through service to our nation. it is more than just a moral obligation it's also a wise investment in america's future. you know, the greatest generation was not called the greatest generation in 1946. that term didn't come about until the 1990's. so it had as much to do with what our veterans of world war ii did after the war when they came home as what they did in it. to ensure that success for today's veterans, we need to do

much better than the republican proposal. as a veteran, i see firsthand that insufficient funding for v.a. programs creates an environment where our veterans fall through the cracks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three seconds. mr. moulton: i do not support throwing money but insufficient funding for the v.a. will only exacerbate this problem. caring for our veterans should be a national priority. the budget before us fails to prioritize our servicemen and women, and i urge my colleagues to vote no. and with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: how much time remains on each side. the speaker pro tempore: 13 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from maryland has 8 1/. mr. price: i yield to a senior member of the budget committee, the gentleman from florida mr.

diaz-balart. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. diaz-balart: i need to commend and thank chairman price for the hard work inputting this budget resolution together. this is a rare occasion on this floor. been a long time since we had a budget agreement. and it's not an easy thing to do. as one of the house budget conferees, i can tell you that a lot of work, a lot of difficult choices have to be made and mr. chairman you have done a spectacular job in getting us here to the floor. one of the most important things, mr. speaker, that the budget resolution has is to frankly set the stage so we can move forward on the appropriations process. we need a budget that puts congress and our committees on a path to move forward and this budget resolution does it and it balances the budget within 10 years, and it does so, mr. speaker, without raising taxes.

and it's no secret. i believe and many of us believe that the first responsibility of the federal government is to protect the american people and it's no secret that the world around us i think greatly due to the failed foreign policy of this administration is almost in flames. we see growing instability and growing pressure to our allies and we see the thugs and the enemies of freedom who believe they have a green light. so we must provide for a strong national defense through robust funding of our troops, of their training equipment and readiness. this budget does so. it accomplishes these goals while staying under the budget control caps. in other words, adhering to the law of the land. it funds the military over the president's request without breaking the law and without raising taxes.

again, something that is easier said than done but chairman price has been able to do that. at a time when we see china their growing defense capabilities north korea and iran, north korea already has a nuclear weapons program and iran is pursuing theirs and growing threats from terrorist groups, let's not forget what our number one priority has to be. this budget resolution reflects our commitment to national security, to the men and women in uniform, to the safety of the american people. it does so, balancing the budget within 10 years and does so without raising taxes. i know it's very easy to be critical and very easy to lecture why this is not perfect. it's been a long time in coming. i'm grateful for the leadership of mr. price, of his counterpart in the senate, chairman enzi, and i ask the members of this distinguished body to approve

this well thought out, hard negotiated budget that funds our priorities, doesn't raise taxes and even balances within 10 years. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: if i may inquire of my friend if he has any more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> i'm pleased to dwreeled -- mr. van hollen: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes.

ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank you for your tireless work as our ranking member on the budget committee. it's truly a pleasure to serb with you. a budget is a moral document. a document that really reflects our values as a nation. unfortunately, budget just does the opposite. mr. speaker once again this congress is poised to take a huge step in the wrong direction. the budget agreement before us is truly a work hard, get less budget that uses accounting gimmicks to balance the budget, once again on the backs of the most vulnerable. it calls for cuts to nondefense discretionary programs, funding $496 billion below the already dismal sequestration level. this means further cuts to education, infrastructure, veterans' and health programs

that have been eviscerated by slash and burn republican austerity plans. today more than 45 million of our fellow americans are living in poverty this agreement will push more people over the brink. with $300 billion in cuts to snap, our food assistance, $431 billion in cuts to medicare, and a half trillion in cuts to medicaid, struggling families will continue to fall further and further behind. we can't forget how these cuts disproportionately affect our communities of color who are more likely to be living in poverty. once many -- once more, this is the latest in the republican fixation on repealing the affordable care act, which they've tried to repeal 50 times. the number of uninsured americans has gone down by 1

million people since the law was eneighted -- enact. why do you want to take health insurance away from 16 million people it continues to use the oco account as a slush fund for pentagon spending. i introduced an amendment in committee to eliminate the account increase of $36 billion included in the house republican budget. members on both sides of the aisle have criticized oko as an affront to transparency and congress' constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities. mr. speaker, last month we introduced our democratic congressional progressive caucus and congressional black caucus alternative budgets. those budgets reflect real solutions to lift americans out of poverty and support the middle class. i urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided an very cynical agreement that would put us on a path to a greater, unequal america that provides less liberty and less justice for

all. it doesn't reflect who we are as a nation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to a senior thoughtful member of the budget committee, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for tree minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman. with this vote, our nation is about to take its first step away from financial ruin and back to prosperity and solvency. our nation's debt has literally doubled in eight years. now exceeding the size of our entire economy. that debt requires us to make interest payments of $230 billion this year. that's nearly $2,000 from an average family's taxes just to rent the money that we've already spent. on our current path that burden will triple within the decade, eclipsing our entire defense budget. medicare and social security will collapse just a few years after that.

time is not our ally and the future is not a pleasant place if we continue just a few more years down the road that we've been on. that's why this budget is so important. it changes the fiscal course of our nation slowly pointing us back toward solvency and prosperity. it restores congressional oversight of an abusive federal bureaucracy. it rescues our health care system from the nightmare of obamacare. it rescues medicare from collapse. it adopts the time tested pro-growth policies that produce the reagan economic recovery and the uns predened prosperity of the 1980's. and if we can implement this budget in 10 years deficits will turn to surpluses and we can begin paying down this rues now debt at a pace that assures that students now in college will retire into a prosperous,

secure, and debt-free america. it's not perfectful it's not complete. ahead of russ many months of legislating to build a governmental streamlining and reforms it calls for. but if we can set this course and if we can stay this course, one day in the very near future a new generation of americans can know just how wonderful it is to awaken and realize it's morning again in america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from michigan another one of our terrific new members of the budget committee ms. din fwell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. dingell: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the report before

us today is deeply flawed. it forces hardworking families to work more and take home less and put ours country on the wrong path. it concerns me that the budget put forth by my republican colleagues does not address the deep, arbitrary and damaging budget cuts we are facing right now. these caps that are so bad that they were never meant to become law and are now a reality a reality that we're gutting our military anded harming working men and women and their families in multiple ways. the gimmicks and the -- gimmicks in the conference report do nothing to address the long-term structural problems the budget cuts have created at the pemming and they do nothing on the nondefense side to help hardworking families buy a home, send their children to college or enjoy a safe, secure retirement with adequate health care. democrats have a better way, a better budget, one that creates greater opportunity for secure

future. we need a secure budget and we shouldn't stand for anything less. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman, the majority leader, mr. mccarthy is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i want to take a moment to thank the chairman. he's done a tremendous job. he's brought another budget to the floor that balances but he's done something no one has done in six years. he's brought a bicameral budget. that's something that we shouldn't just take for granted. something that the house and senate couldn't do for quite some time, and your leadership has been tremendous. to my friends on the other side, you make a lot of debate. i look forward to hearing them. i'm thankful this time you have more democrats on the floor than you did a couple of weeks ago,

that's helpful. it's helpful for a debate and this is the place we should have it. two weeks ago i was on this floor to talk about our budget. and i said that a budget is a vision for the future. it sets out your priorities but also shows your values. well for the first time in six years, the house and senate have gotten together, worked out our differences and drafted a bicameral budget. this budget shows america exactly where we stand. with this budget we have a choice before us. do we keep going down our current path or do we change course. our current path adds to the debt. it's stuck in the past. in fact, the budget the democrats offered would never balance. so my question to everybody on the other side of the aisle, and especially to my friend, the ranking member, we have a family close in age. we have children. about the same age. so my question to the other side is simply this.

how will our kids invest in the future when they're busy paying for our past? the intudget a different course. it says that we will balance the budget and then actually start paying down the debt. it says that it is a more dangerous world so we'll increase spending for defense. it says we will repeal obamacare, and it says no new taxes. it says that it's time to grow america's economy, not washington's. -- not washington. you know mr. speaker, the future is not about washington. it's not about government trying and failing to solve our problems. while adding more and more debt that our children and grandchildren have to pay. america's future, our 21st century will be built by american people. that's what this budget would do. it's the foundation for a strong american future. and a future even brighter than our past. and i look forward to taking the first steps to that future. and i look forward to not

leaving our children, our debt, but leaving them a brighter future where they have greater opportunities. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i would say to the republican leader, who mentioned children of america, that if the children of america learn republican math we're going to be in real trouble because they won't be able to count. as the senate republican budget chairman has said, this kind of budget approach that claims balance because they take the level of revenue from the affordable care act, when at the same time say they're repealing the affordable care act, i think most kids can figure out that's a shell game and we're going to be in real trouble if that's the basis of teaching math in our

schools, not to mention the fact that we've got a budget here that's squeezing people who are really working hard while providing a green light to tax cuts for people at the very top. that's also not a set of priorities i think that we want to pass on to our children wem want an economy that works for everybody. an economy where everyone who works hard can get ahead. and i don't see how we're going to get our kids ahead by providing tax cuts to folks at the top while cutting our kids' education and making them pay more for their college loans. that's a recipe for decline. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding and

for his leadership in bringing this budget to the floor. i want to thank the entire budget committee and conferees for doing the hard work and responsible work of finally focusing on bringing responsibility and fiscal discipline back to washington. if you look at what's been happening across the country, people are struggling. these are tough times tough economy, people's weages are stagnant, they're paying more for food, they're paying more for electricity, they're surely paying more for health care. they're looking to washington to say, why doesn't washington start focusing on these problems? why doesn't washington do what families are doing? hardworking taxpayers live within their means. why can't washington do the same this budget does that. it focuses on creating healthy economy. actually getting jobs and getting people back to work in this country. forcing washington to finally balance the federal budget. mr. speaker, when we passed this budget -- when we pass this budget it will represent the first time since 2001 that congress has come together to pass a budget that balances in the 10-year window.

that shouldn't be something that happens every 14 years. that should be something we do every year. the other side surely didn't do it when they were in the majority. in fact, none of the budgets they brought to the floor ever get to balance. not 10 year, not 20 year, not 50 years. they rack up more debt. they increase taxes over $2 trillion of new taxes in the president's budget he proposed and he never gets to plans. this budget not only calls for good tax reforl to make our country competitive again, the lower rate so families can keep more of their money and invest in themselves and not grow the size of government, but it actually focuses on get manager jobs in this country. repeals the president's health care law that's causing so many problems, millions of people losing the good health care plans they have and paying more for it. we've got to finally bring thisties plin back and force washington to do what families have been doing and be responsible. it's a good budget. i'm glad we're going to be

bringing it to the floor and passing it. let's get to doing the other work we need to do to get our economy back on track and it starts here. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i would once again inquire if the gentleman has more speakers? how much time remains on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia has 5 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from maryland, 3 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. price: mr. speaker i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 3 3/4 minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. this budget does not reflect the priorities of the american people. i think if you ask most americans what kind of economy they want, they would tell you that they want an economy

that's growing rapidly with more shared prosperity. you don't get that kind of economy with trickled down economics, with the kind of theory that's embedded in the republican budget, and that theory is if you provide tax rate cuts to people at the very top, to millionaires somehow the benefits are going to trickle down and lift everybody up. we tried that in the 2000's under george bush. it didn't work. what happened? not surprisingly folks at the top who got tax cuts, they ended up with more take-home income. everybody was either treading in water or falling behind. why would we want a budget that is based on a failed economic strategy is going to leave the

american public scratching their heads. the approach we recommended was one where we provide more tax relief to hardworking americans. we wanted to expand the provision for child independent tax credits so that people can make sure their kids are in a safe environment while they're at work and not have to break the family bank in order to do it. we wanted to invest in our kids' education. we want to invest in scientific research and pay for it by closing some of the tax breaks that encourage american corporations to ship american jobs and money overseas and get rid of the special tax rates that hedge fund managers have that hardworking americans don't. we proposed fixing a tax system that's rigged in favor of the special interests and the very powerful and changing the way that provides additional help to people who are being squeezed, who are in the middle

or working their way into the middle. that's an economic plan that works for everybody in the country, not one that just works for people at the very top. and yet what we saw just last week was the number one economic priority of our republican colleagues was to eliminate the estate tax on estates above $10 million. help 5,500 americans run up the deficit by $270 billion and then come back and say hey, the deficit just went up by $270 because we provided an estate tax cuts to estates $10 million and up and so let's cut our kids' education, let's increase the amount we charge seniors for prescription drugs. let's raise the cost of student loans and let's cut our investment in kids' education. that's what this republican

budget does, and it's not that our colleagues don't believe in this failed theory but you would think at some point reality would intrude and people would say we need an economy that works for every american, not just a few. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this budget. let's start again in a way that really reflects the greatness of america, and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 5 1/2 minutes. mr. price: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on senate concurrent resolution 11, the conference report. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. price: thank you mr. speaker. now, i guess it's appropriate that we begin the process of this debate that's called, and now for the rest of the story, and for folks that are watching and for our colleagues who have been observing this debate and you want more information, i urge you to go to the website and take a peek at the resolution.

budget.house.gov. you can get all sorts of information about the positive solutions that we're putting forward, and it's not just our opinion. we got a lot of folks who are out there supporting the resolution that we put forward. the 60-plus association says, quote, on behalf of senior citizens, the 60-plus association applauds you for putting together a responsible balanced budget plan. not only will this legislation protect today's seniors but it will protect our children and our grandchildren. national federation small business advocacy organization thank you for your efforts. small business owners strongly support your efforts, unquote. u.s. chamber of commerce. quote, the world's largest business federation representing interests of more than three million businesses -- that's jobs, mr. speaker of all sizes and sectors and regions -- strongly supports

your resolution. on behalf of 1.3 members of amac, i'm writing to applaud the efforts for working to pass a budget this year and convey our strong support for the policies set support thrin. so significant support literally -- therein. so significant support literally across the country mr. speaker. i want to dress some specific issues that have -- address some specific issues that's come forward. because now is time for the rest of the story our friends talk about the lack of growth within our budget. in fact, that's not the case. the congressional budget office stipulates that over $400 billion in growth will occur in the first 10-year period of time. we believe it will be much more than that because we believe in a dynamic market. we believe when you allow the economy to thrive, when you allow folks to have more jobs and more opportunity and more dreams realized that in fact you get the economy rolling to greater degree and actually more increase in growth will occur within the economy.

we've heard from our friends on the other side about all these tax increases that are in this budget. mr. speaker, let me tell you very clearly there are no tax increases in this budget. we balance the budget within a 10-year period of time with no tax increases. what they describe is their extrapolation on what they think policy is going to be. as you know and our colleagues in this chamber know, it's not the budget committee that brings forward tax resolutions. the ways and means committee, and we charge the ways and means committee coming forward with pro-growth tax policy to get this economy rolling again, to actually get rates down. yes, for large and small businesses so we can create more jobs but, yes mr. speaker, for the american people as well. that's our vision. that's our goal. that's what we think ought to occur again so that more dreams can be realized and more americans have the -- can have the kind of opportunity that they so desire. we've heard a lot of talk about student loans mr. speaker.

our budget, our budget resolution, this budget resolution does not decrease student loans does not decrease the pell grants. it's important that american people know that. if you don't believe it, don't believe me, just go to the website, read the resolution. budget.house.gov. we heard over and over again about the talk on health care. in fact, one individual on the other side of the aisle said we were, quote, taking away health care from 16 million people, unquote. nonsense, mr. speaker. nonsense. it just simply is not so. what we believe is we ought to have a health care system that actually works for patients and families and doctors and allows them to make medical decisions and health care decisions, not washington, d.c. not the federal government. that's not what the american people want. we're mired in a system right now that the president forced down the throats of the american people and our friends on the other side of the aisle forced down the throats of those of us in this congress a few short years ago, and we're

mired in a system that actually is providing less quality of care and less affordability and less access to care. that's not what we believe ought to happen. what we do is charge the committees with coming forward with that patient-centered solution a solution that will again put patients and families and doctors in charge. and then we hear about this continuing the sequester and, you're right, we do follow the law of the land, mr. speaker, because the budget resolution can't change the sequester. i challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and i invite them to work together as we move forward over the next number of months to let's get together and solve the challenge of sequester in a responsible way, by decreasing spending on the mandatory side so we can find the resources that are so vitally necessary on the discretionary side. i welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues. mr. speaker, this is a budget that gets our nation's fiscal house in order. it's a budget that would get folks back to work. it's a budget that would save and strengthen and secure

medicare and medicaid, put us on a path to saving social security. it's a budget that protects our national defense. it's a budget that deserves support in this chamber. i urge my colleagues to support it, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has extired. pursuant to house resolution 231, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the conference report. pursuant to clause 10 of rule 20 the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes.

here we have the republicans laying out their priorities, what they would like to see happen, but a budget resolution is not signed by president obama, it's not law. a lot of this is just sort of a blueprint for where they'd like to go, not necessarily where they will actually go this year. host: you wrote one of the last hurdles to get over was senator

bob corker, you talked about his comment that there were gimmicks in this budget conference report. what did he mean by that? guest: he was the last person to sign this conference deal he, held it up for a couple of days because of his concern. he said taking money, assuming it will be there, he doesn't believe it will. he's joined by a number of fiscal conservatives in that concern. ultimately he did sign the budget agreement acknowledging they need to put something forward he said he's begun talks on both sides of the capitol to fix that for next year. host: your article for "national journal" looks at budget winners and losers. you list tom price as a winner and loser. why did you do that? guest: getting a budget done, a bicameral budget especially is very difficult. this is tom price's first year as chairman though he's been on the committee for a number of

years. he does come out a winner for getting a deal done. the reason he's a loser is they lost the medicare plan that he push sod hard for. that pall ryan came up with several years ago. which would reform medicare and make some big changes there. that was changen out of the final agreement. also they lost -- he lost the battle as a fiscal conservative with the defense hawks price's original budget did not include additional money for defense spending. his leadership the sided they couldn't get it through their conference unless they appeased those defense hawks so they sort of went over his head and created their own version of his budget blueprint with additional testifies money and that's what they ended up passing. host: you mention the defense hawks were one of the winners in this debate and also one of the losers, with the conservative republicans in the house. does that create a conflict as the conference report comes to the house floor for debate? guest: i think so. that's nothing new, the divide

between defense hawks who insist we need more money to fight america's wars and to protect the country abroad, and these fiscal conservatives who, as you know, took over the house in 2010 and have been really threatening boehner and saying we need to be cut manager spending here and there. those fiscal conservatives lost in this budget deal. they ended up putting an additional $96 billion into this defense account. we will see how they end up reacting in the house when this comes up for a vote. but really they only need a majority to get this done and boehner seems confident that they can get that. host: what about the senate? you talked about senator corker's objections. how is the debate shaping up there? guest: the senate is planning to vote on this next week. as i said they only need a majorityful they can lose up to three of their members on this budget. they got 51 the last time they passed it. this conference budget is very, very similar to what the senate has already passed. mcconnel and his team are also

confident they can get it through there. host: you talk about the budget conference report being a blueprint and the grunt grubt work has to be done by appropriations committees who set the spending bills. have we heard from appropriations chairs on how that's shaping up? guest: the appropriations committee is really getting started in the house right now. they're planning on voting on some spending bills today. that would be the first time in more than 30 years that the congress has gotten started on appropriation this is early in the year. one of the reasons they're doing that is because they know it's going to be a difficult battle. they know especial -- especially in the senate where they need to get democrats, at least six of them, on any of these bills to get them through, that they need some time to press the flesh and figure out where the votes are. democrats are already saying, senator schumer said yesterday, they're going to block appropriations bills until they get a deal that takes care of the sequester. it's going to be interesting to see how that battle plays out, especially in the upper chamber.

host: sarah mimms covering the budget debate, read her reporting at nationaljournal.com and follow her on twitter. >> earlier today, house speaker boehner held his weekly briefing with reporters at the capitol. he talked about trade policy and the u.s. economy for about 10 minutes. speaker boehner: good morning, everyone. again, the people's house, we continue to get things done for the american people. after enacting the first entitlement refomp in -- reform in nearly two decades, we're starting an appropriations process earlier than at any time

since 19 4. also making progress on cybersecurity, re-authorizing our foreign intelligence capabilities and have a real opportunity to work together on trade. and today we'll pass the first joint, 10-year balanced budget plan since 2001. just yesterday we saw g.d.p. figures that reflect what many in middle class families are going through. running in place and getting nowhere. frankly, i think it's unacceptable. america needs real growth. that means real pro-growth policies to fix the tax code, expand american energy production and solve our spending problem. all of those things are in this balanced budget. as the majority leader has noted in our first 100 days, both the full house and our committees essentially doubled their output from the last congress. we got a lot left to do but we're listening to the american people and getting things done. on iran, this week the iranians

fired on the -- seized a neutral vessel traveling in international waters. a top iranian general stated that the united states was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. and iran -- iran's top dip -- diplomat said any economic sanctions would be lifted only days after a teal is signed. none of this should be taken lightly or silently as the administration would apparently have us do. we're getting closer to making sure congress can review any potential agreement with iran and iran by its words and actions is showing exactly why we need this type of accountability. lastly, the people of baltimore have certainly been in our prayers, especially the family of freddie gray and the police officers who have been injured. like many americans, i've been inspired by the stories of residents banding together to clean up the damage.

while the president suggested more taxpayer money is the answer. again, we believe the answer is more jobs and more opportunity. our government spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on well-intentioned programs designed to help people get out of poverty. we've been doing this for decades. but from what we've seen around the country, it's clear that this approach is not working. i think we should be asking the question, what is working, and what isn't? if they're not work, how can we fix these programs? how can we make sure we educate more of america's kids? how can we put in place more economic policies that expand opportunities for all americans? and how can we put the focus on what will help the most people in need and will do the most good for our communities? while my political i-- one of my political icons, jack kemp, was asking the same questions nearly

three decades ago. today my friend paul ryan and many others are continuing that work. focus on expanding opportunity instead of creating more dependency. i think we owe it to every american to take a long, hard look at this problem and begin to think of new solutions. >> speaker boehner did you tell a private group that congress does not have the votes to stop the iran deal? speaker boehner: i did not. >> you feel congress is able to stop the iran deal if need be? speaker boehner: we'll see if there is an agreement. we'll see what comes of the corker bill that comes out of the senate and then we'll take it from there. it's too early to speculate on whether we can or can't. >> there's a big debate going on about the patriot act that's about to expire.

some want straight re-authorization, others would like reforl. what's your personal position and how do you think you should proceed? speaker boehner: i think the work of the intelligence committee and judiciary committee has produced a good package that i believe will be marked up in judiciary today. of course it's not everything that i'd want but enge it's a solid agroment that basically reflects the bill that passed the house last year with nearly 300 votes. i know there have been several changes, but it's essentially the bill we passed again with almost 300 votes last year. >> mr. speaker what do the trackers -- the what do detractors of this trade agreement not get? where do they fall short in understanding? and if the president wants leading democrats to pass the bill, you have to be the one to reach out across the aisle and say look see if we can get some of these guys on board.

speaker boehner: trade has been very good for america. it's created millions of jobs in our country. but i don't think those who are involved in trade have done a very good job of helping the americans understand the benefits of trade and why in fact it's good for america. that's why we have this struggle every queue few years when it comes to a trade bill or trade promotion authority. but one thing is clear. there'll be strong, republican support for trade promotion authority. another point to keep in mind is that every democrat leader in the house and senate are opposed to giving the president what he's asking for. and the president needs to step up his game in terms of fwarnering more support amongst democrats, especially here in the house. >> mr. speaker, 20 years ago you had a house republican majority that didn't just pass a

balanced budget -- [inaudible] it's very difficult as you remember. speaker boehner: i think we have a different environment here than we did in 1997. the fact is, the president is the one who suggested the sequester when he backed out of a long-term deal that he and i and mr. cantor had agreed to. and you know, the president is serious about this. we'd welcome his involvement. in fixing our long-term spending problem. >> but in 1995, it was a republican-only exercise that proved to the american people that you could do it but you've made the promise and aren't fulfilling it. speaker boehner: if we get support if the other side of the aisle we'd love to do it. >> it's clear that hensarling

doesn't want to continue the export-import bank. could you breng that for a vote? speaker boehner: i support any plan the chairman can get through his committee whether it would end the bank or wind it down but there are thousands of jobs on the line that would disappear quickly if the ex-im bank were to disappear. the risk is if he does nothing, the senate is likely to act and then what. >> that was my question. speaker boehner: that's the question i posed to the chairman, you might ask him. >> the decision to delay vote on the appropriations bill last night, why were appropriations bills taken up before the budget was passed? speaker boehner: our goal was -- >> taking you back live to the house as they gavel back in for votes.

s.con.res. 11 which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 11, setting forth the congressional budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the conference report. 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226, the nays are 197. the conference report is adopted.

pursuant to house resolution 223 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 229. will the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 229 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday

april 29 2015, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, had been postponed and the bill had been read through page 67, line 10. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment by mr. van hollen of maryland, amendment by mr. mulvaney of south carolina second amendment by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. amendment by mr. nadler of new york amendment by mr. blumenauer of oregon, amendment by mr. pocan of wisconsin amendment by mr. hice of georgia, amendment number 3 by mr. king of iowa. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote in this series.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, on which the 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. van hollen of maryland. 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 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 191, the nays are 229, with one voting

present. this amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: first amendment offered by mr. mulvaney of south 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 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 189, the nays are 229 with one voting present.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 192, the nays are 229 with one voting present. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina 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. mulvaney of south 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 190, the nays are 231 with one voting present. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. caller: amendment offered by mr. nadler of new york. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for the recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote willst 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 167 the nays are 254. the amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 210 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 210, the nays are 213. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, on which further proceedings on which -- were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. pocan of wisconsin. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 186 the nays are 237. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. heist, on which further proceed -- mr. hice, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hice of georgia. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded -- the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 190, the nays are 232. the amendment is not adopted. the chair: the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, on which further proceedings -- proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: a record 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 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 186, the nays are 235. the amendment is not adopted. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 67 line 11, this act may be cited as the military construction and veterans affairs and represented agencies' appropriations act 2016.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. dent: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the house with sundry amendment, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amend dodd 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 ayes have it. the motion is -- 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.

229, directs me to report the same back to the house with sundry amendment. 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 the bill h.r. 229 and reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. with the recommendation that the amendments be adopted and that the bill as amended do pass. under house resolution 223, the previous question is ordered. is it a separate vote demanded -- 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 adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading.

the clerk: a bill making appropriations for military construction the department of veterans affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members are asked to remove their conversations from the house floor. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mrs. kirkpatrick of arizona moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 2029, to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. in the medical services account on page 27, line 9, after the

dollar amount insert, increase by $15 million. in the general administration account on page 30 line 15, after the first dollar amount insert, reduce by $15 million. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. kirkpatrick: this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. as we witnessed last year during the v.a. patients access crisis, the v.a. does not have the resources it needs to care for our nation's veterans. last year i worked tirelessly with my colleagues to pass the veterans' access, choice and accountability act, which established the v.a. choice program, allowing our veterans to seek care outside the v.a.

when they live too far from a v.a. medical facility or cannot receive timely care. while some improvements in the v.a. patient access have been made, i know from listening to the veterans in my district and from veterans service organizations, that veterans are still struggling to access care. this bill in its current form underfunds the v.a. by over $1 billion. $1 billion. the arizona department of veterans affairs and the arizona v.f.w. and veterans groups all over arizona and this country are opposed to these cuts. this motion to recommit will provide an additional $15 million for vital medical services, long-term care, mental health treatment, assistance to homeless veterans, substance abuse treatment and caregiver support. $15 million toward these essential services for our veterans is tiny.

in comparison to the drastic cut to the v.a.'s budget in this bill. and this $15 million is paid for by a reduction in administrative expenses, so this money will go directly to providing care for veterans. mr. speaker, i wish to remind my colleagues that the v.a. choice program will end next year. whether or not veterans are given a choice, the v.a. will still need adequate funding and resources to care for our veterans. i would also like to remind my colleagues that just two months ago we learned from another whistleblower that the phoenix v.a.'s mental health facility is significantly underresourced. due to significant understaffing and mismanagement, veterans contemplating suicide and veterans seeking treatment for substance abuse will be unable to receive the immediate care they need. this is horrible and unacceptable. while it is necessary that we

continue to hold the v.a. accountable, address the v.a.'s management issues and prevent waste, we will not solve this problem at the v.a.'s patient access problem without ensuring the v.a. has the resources it needs to provide timely and quality care. veterans will continue to wait if the resources are not there. if we do not address the lack of v.a. resources now we will continue to hear heartbreaking stories from veterans who are unable to receive timely treatment. if the v.a. choice program ends without re-authorization and funding, those veterans will return to the v.a. and veterans new to the v.a. will also need treatment. we will then face another patient access crisis. and this time it will be our fault. caring for veterans is a cost of war. cuts to government spending should not be shouldered by the men and women we have chosen to place in harm's way.

we have a moral obligation to ensure these brave americans who have fought and sacrificed for us receive the health care and the benefits they have earned. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. dent: speak on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman oppose -- is the gentleman opposed to the motion? mr. dent: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. as members of congress, we have a serious responsibility to exercise proper oversight. this bill has long enjoyed broad bipartisan support and was brought up through an open process that allowed all voices to be heard and all opinions to be considered. i was proud to work in a bipartisan manner with the ranking member bishop on this bill, he's a good friend and good man and good partner. we considered together 715

member requests while drafting this bill. of which 562 were from democratic members. we did our best to accommodate the members on both sides of the aisle. i believe we did. we were successful. we then considered yesterday 43 amendments additional amendments proposals almost all last night. this motion to recommit could have been offered at any time during this debate but they chose to do it tonight. and by the way, should let you know too that the bill that we're going to be considering passed last year with all but one vote. the bill that we're going to be considering spends 6% more than the one last year. but i want to say something about the motion to recommit it. reflects the administration's continuing efforts to deflect their management failures at the v.a. on the congress. and the gentlelady who just spoke said this bill cuts spending. it does not. it's a 6% increase. 6% increase over last year. it's not a cut. yes, i know the administration, they don't want us to talk about the $930 million cost

overrun at the v.a. medical construction project. and there are others. yes, i know they don't want us to discuss the pervasive neglect and mismanagement at the philadelphia v.a. regional office. and of course they don't want us to discuss the atrocious failure to serve countless veterans in phoenix. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. . members will please remove their conversations from the house floor. the house will be in order. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dent: i know the administration doesn't want to talk about the cost overruns in denver or orlando or wherever they may occur new orleans. they don't want us to talk about the problems at the philadelphia v.a. where the inspector general just two weeks ago provided a list of horrible failures and they don't want us to talk about the failures to serve veterans in phoenix many of whom paid for the v.a.'s mistakes with

their own lives. the obama administration has controlled this government for six years, six years. it's time they take responsibility for the v.a.'s failures and allow us to move forward with this bill and increase the services and resources to our veterans and service members. for the administration to say that they would veto this bill because we provided for the v.a. a 6% increase over enacted levels instead of 9% is a threat that can only make sense here in washington. only here in washington can a 6% increase be called a cut. everywhere else in america that's called an increase. congress should not be expected to behave like potted plants and ack seed to the president's requests. just for some numbers, the bill provides $48 poif 6 billion for v.a. medical services, above

last year's level. we provide advanced funding for fiscal year 2017 at $51.7 billion. our bill is a good bill in its current form. and targets the needs of homeless veterans, caregivers who sacrifice their time and those veterans waiting too long for decisions on their disabilities. the bill provides every dollar the administration requested. but that's the good news story that doesn't fit the gloom and doom narrative of this administration, which once again, you know, doesn't want to acknowledge the management failures at the v.a. and saying a 6% increase is a cut. we know better the american people know better and veterans know better, we need to reject this motion and ask for the bill to be passed.

the speaker pro tempore: the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mrs. kirkpatrick: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20 this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed on a five-minute vote on passage of the bill. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 181 and the nays 236. the motion is not adopted. the question on passage of the bill under clause 10 of rule 20, the question is on passage of the bill, under clause 10 of rule 20. yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 255 the nays are 163. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider slayed on the table. -- is laid on the table.

pursuant to house resolution 223, and rule 18, the chair declares that the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2028. will the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren kindly retake the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2028 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 29, line 4.

for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. quigley of illinois. page 29, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $167,050,000. page 67, line 11, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $167,050,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from illinois and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you mr. chairman. over the next decade the u.s. is set to spend hundreds of billions of dollars operating and upgrading our nuclear arsenal. but in this budget environment, every dollar we spend to keep our arsenal function something dollar we aren't spending on other priorities that keep us safe and secure or in reducing our unstable -- unsustainable debts and deficits. that's why this will put $167 million toward deficit

reduction by placing funding for the new nuclear armed cruise missile war head back on its original 2015 acquisition schedule. in the f.y. 2015 budget, production of the war head was scheduled to begin in 2027. but this year's budget request sped up the development for the war head by two years. this is despite the fact that the existing air launch cruise missile and war head isn't being phased out until the 2030's. and there is plenty of uncertainty about whether this program is affordable or even necessary. chairman simpson is so concerned about the cost of the war head that language was included in the report to require a red team assessment on the affordability of the program. and for good reason, given our history of spending large amounts of money on war head programs that end up getting tabled. given the cost concerns over the program, does it really make sense to rush the

acquisition process? furthermore, as some experts note, there is no longer a need to shoot nuclear cruise missiles from far away when we have the most advanced bomber ever created in our arsenal. the b-2 stealth bomber, which is capable of penetrating enemy air space and dropping a nuclear bomb directly above a target. if we decide we want to shoot nuclear missiles from thousands of miles away, we still have very expensive submarines and very expensive icbm's capability of doing just that -- capable of doing just that. so ask yourselves, should we really be accelerating the development of a war head that goes on a missile we don't need and could cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, more than anticipated? i ask my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to maintain funding at the program's f.y. 2015 acquisition schedule and save the taxpayers $167 million in the process. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. ensuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is a critical national security priority in this bill. the bill fully funds the $195 million needed to initiate a life extension program for the war head, the only nuclear tipped cruise missile in the u.s. nuclear arsenal. the life extension program will replace non-nuclear and other components to extend the life of the war head and to ensure it can be deployed on the air force's long range standoff cruise missile should that program move forward. the budget request was considered a two-year acceleration of the lrso program compared to last year's stockpile plan. to meet the defense requirement for deployment in 2030. however it is clear that there is considerable planning that needs to be accomplished by the administration before congress can have confidence in these

long-term stockpile plans. while 2030 may seem like many years away these war heads are very complex and there is a considerable amount of work to accomplish between now and then. reforming -- performing additional work earlier in the schedule will allow the reduction of technical risk and limit any cost growth. the gentleman's amendment would slash funding for this effort and that will add additional risk and uncertainty to the schedule. we must do the work that is needed to extend the life of this war head as long as there is a clear defense requirement for maintaining a nuclear cruise missile capability. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from -- the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. chairman. i respect chairman simpson's request that language be included in the report to require a red team assessment of the affordability of this program. all i'm adding to that is, if we have questions about the affordability of this program, the program that is not going to take place for some time, do

we really want to accelerate the spending program? in this budget environment it does not make sense to accelerate the development of a war head while at the same time requiring an assessment on its affordability. why would we put more money into a program that may end up getting tabled? should we at least wait until the release of the red team report before adjusting the acquisition schedule? i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. members are reminded to please not traffic the well while other members are debating. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: again i would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, as i said performing additional work earlier in this schedule will allow the reduction of technical risk and limit any cost growth while we are finding out about what the red team assessment comes up with. so i think this is -- it's important that we defeat this amendment and i'd urge my

colleagues to vote no and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. quigley: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask ask for a recorded vote? mr. quigley: yes. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. page 29, line 2, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $25 million. page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $25 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. madam chairman. mr. chairman. we just heard mr. quigley and mr. simpson in a debate about this very same issue. i don't want to cover the exact same ground but i want to put this in the context of a -- i think a very serious concern that all of us ought to have.

the rebuilding or what's known as the life extension program for our nuclear bombs, is but one small part -- actually one very large part, but small in comparison to the total reconditioning rebuilding of our entire nuclear enterprise. when you consider the totality of what we are doing in this appropriations bill and in last night's when we took up the defensive authorization bill, you can only, and you must come to the conclusion that the united states is now involved in a very significant total restructuring and rebuilding of our entire nuclear deterrent system. it's not just the six to seven different nuclear warheads that are going to be rebuilt at a cost of several tens of billions of dollars it is also all of the delivery systems.

we are in fact engaged in a new nuclear arms race. many of us grew up in the 1960's and 1970's, 1950's, 1960's and 1970's and i think all of us have a memory of the arms race and, you know, all of the drills. hide underneath the table. all of the trouble. i think we have a memory of what went on with the cuban missile crisis. when you step back and look at what we are doing in the appropriations bill before us, as well as in the national defense authorization act, you must come to the conclusion that we are on the path to spend $1 trillion over the next 25 years to 30 years rebuilding the entire nuclear enterprise. we have in this bill all of the nuclear weapons. in this one we went from some $9 million last year for this

to over $190 million in this bill. yes, there are safeguards and yes we ought to pull all of this money back until we decide how this fits into the new cruise missile. the new long range cruise missile. replacing the old variety. and that goes on the new stealth bomber the lsro. a new stealth bomber at $550 million a copy. more than half a billion dollars a plane. a cruise missile, a new plane doing the exact same thing. and that is to be added to a new minuteman missile for the silos in the midwest the upper midwest. new minuteman three missiles. that will be added to the new submarines that are going out there with new missiles and new warheads. and on top of that, some new stealth technology that's going on that we really can't even talk about. but it's happening.

$1 trillion in a nuclear arms race that is being replicated by china and russia, the united kingdom and france. what in the world is this world coming to? this isn't iran. iran is a separate issue. significantly important. but this is different. this is the major nuclear armedky countries in the world -- armed countries in the world, all of them upgrading their nuclear systems. we have the new bombs, new precision bombs. we have the new delivery systems, stealth. it is extraordinarily dangerous because the hair trigger of the past and all of the rules of the past are now going to be put aside and now we have a really really fine hair trigger. you won't know but a few minutes ahead of time when it's incoming. because it's a stealth bomber. or a cruise missile. or even a hypersonic missile. and suddenly there you are. you've got seconds to make a

decision about whether you're going to annihilate the world or not. how do you respond to this? you've got russia over there talking about using a nuclear weapon as a deterrent to reduce some sort of standard military conflict. this is an extraordinarily dangerous situation. i want to draw the attention of the entire house and use this particular effort to reduce this account by $25 million. mr. quigley, i think, had a better proposal and that is to reduce the whole thing. . but here we are. pay attention to what the overarching issue is here. it is the opening quarter of a new nuclear arms race among the great powers of the world. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: claim time in opposition. i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the bill fully requests to initiate a life extension program for the w-80 warhead. the life extension program will replace to extend the life of the w-80 and lrso should that program move forward. the committee will look to realign work if there are changes to the schedule. but as long as that program stays on track, we need to make sure that the work that needs to be done is properly aligned with these efforts and the gentleman's amendment would make it more difficult for the agency . and i urge members to oppose this amendment. the chair: the question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: -- the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: page 29 line 15 after the dollar amount insert reduced by $13and increase by $3 million. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska and a member opposed each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. mr. fortenberry: first of all, it's my understanding that our chairman and the ranking member actually support this amendment and i want to express my gratitude to the chairman for working with me in thinking critically as to how we making our nuclear nonproliferation architecture morrow bus. it moves from the mixed oxide over to the nuclear smuggling and detection account and research development account as well. nuclear smuggling and detection is an important part of our nonproliferation regimen and into better techniques to and technology has to be one of the morrow bus considerations moving forward in this appropriations bill ensuring that we are focused on the nonproliferation

threats that are occurring throughout the world as the technology spreads and fissile material who want to use it. i want to point out why this minimum is taking from the mixed oxide program. we are spending $345 million on this program, but mox is expensive and future is unclear. we have to come to some policy decision here. we keep digging this hole. this policy is adrift and costing taxpayers a great deal of money. it's not fair in terms of pib policy and not fair to the people of south carolina and georgia because of this uncertainty. we need a decision here, is it no, we aren't going to proceed with mox whether it is blended down or stored or need to

rethink the public policy that led us to this point which is 20 years old or some sort of international consortium to deal with this particular issue and share in the costs. if the answer is yes we are going to proceed with mox, spending $345 million a year to keep it open with a little bit extra and to keep it in cold storage is approximately $200 million. it doesn't get us on that road. so the policy here is adrift and we have got to come to deeper consideration as to what we are going to do. the problem with mox is the initial cost is $1 billion and now looking at $7 billion. some clear deliberate decision and if it's yes, we need to expedite this and need to do it in a cost-conscious manner so we

can move more of these funds into the robust portions, into our arc tktur to bring down the capability of a nuclear weapons explosion as close to zero ensuring that we are keeping this material out of other's hands. with that, i yield to my friend from california, mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi: i want to commend the gentleman. the mox fall silt cost is over $47 billion and will not solve the problem. the disposition of the unnecessary plutonium stock can be done in other ways. you are quite correct to put it into nonproliferation issues, trying to figure out where the loose nukes might be around the world. i draw your attention to the men and women here today that in

yesterday's national defense authorization act, those facilities that sense the movement of nuclear materials across borders, the in-place were withdrawn and taken out. we ought to put that back in. i want to commend the gentleman for being right on and we noticed to sort out the mox facility. mr. fortenberry: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i reserve the balance of my time. i commend the chairman for trying to work with me. this is a difficult position. you have a very difficult task here. what i really appreciate the way in which you have drawn together an important bill here. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition although i'm not opposed to the amendment. i thank the gentleman for his efforts and strong advocacy for

this program in trying to become the expert and really is what i consider maybe one of the fover most experts in the house on nonproliferation issues and i thank the gentleman from nebraska and gentleman from california for their efforts. it is a challenging issue for us. mox -- interesting to hear the 47 billion, all sorts of different estimates and we don't know how they came to these conclusions and when you look at the alternatives at this report that just came out from the department, they said if i remember correctly the blend-down activities was at a cost that was much less. if you look at the blend-down alternatives, what they didn't add into it is that you would put that material in whip, theoretically, first of all, you have to get whip extended, you

have a 15-year extension. there was no cost in there for the operation of whip and what it was going to cost. we are still having a hard time coming to grips with what the actual costs of the different alternatives are. and this is one of those things that it is frustrating for our committee, i think, over the years for a lot of different things where we spend billions of dollars and all of a sudden change directions and it seems like we are throwing money away. i'm open to looking at what the alternatives are and i want to look at the numbers behind the report that came out. but this amendment adds by the same amount. therefore the language of the amendment doesn't change the amounts directly related to the mox which will continue to be funded at $345. i share your concerns and concerns we need to address.

if we are not going to go down this road we shouldn't be spending $345 million a year. now we are going to spend a bunch of money. even if you close it down, we are going to lose money. we need to make a determination of what's going to happen with mox and what we are going to do with this additional plutonium. maybe the best thing to do is store it, of course that violates an agreement we have with the russians. so you have to get their agreement on that. it is a challenging issue, i will be the first to admit, and we had a challenge in the committee trying to deal with it. mr. garamendi: would the gentleman yield? your concerns and the way in which we are approaching is the right way to go about it. two studies have been done dealing with the money dealing with the mox procedure and

process. the blending down, you talked about it and doesn't talk about the full cost. and there is blending down and put it into a glass container and then store that. those have problems as another option that will be analyzed and coming out later in this year in september and that is the use of a fast reactor to burn the plutonium and thereby make it unusable for weapons. it would generate a significant amount of energy which could produce steam and energy along the way. that study is coming out later this year. we ought to do what you are doing is slow down and look at this. for those concerned about the jobs in the savannah river area, a lot of this work can be done in one of these options. just don't do something that doesn't work.

you could do a fast reactor and use that as a method of consuming the plutonium and rendering it unuseful. we are headed down a rat hole, slow down, stop. commend both of you where you are going. carry on. i yield back. mr. fortenberry: i know it's a -- mr. simpson: it's a matter to the united states and to the world actually, but i thank you for your efforts in this arena and continue on. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. fortenberry: i thank the chairman. this is a tough one and he is working aggressively to get to a good decision. let me thank the gentleman from california for his insights and participation as well. i yield back. i. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from nebraska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi, page 29, line 15 after the dollar amount reduce by 125 million. page 31, line 7, after the dollar amount insert increased. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223 the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: members, i want to raise an issue along the lines of our earlier discussion and what we heard in the previous discussion and that is where we are going with the nuclear enterprise. and my personal view is, we are

in the first quarter of a new nuclear arms race. this amendment deals with a critical part of that effort to rebuild the nuclear weapons systems of the united states. we currently have maybe 10,000 unused nuclear plutonium pits. this is the heart of a nuclear bomb pure plutonium and heart of the bomb. the 10,000 that are not used come out of nuclear weapons that have been dismanted because of the nuclear arms treaty, all to the good. the mox deals with that unused excess plutonium and others. but this amendment deals with the notion of rebuilding the -- and increasing the capacity of

the united states to produce new plutonium pits. we presently have the capacity to produce between five and 10 plutonium pits, again the heart of a nuclear weapon in the existing facilities. we are going to spend a few billion dollars unknown between a billion and $3 billion building the facilities to increase the capacity to manufacture these plutonium pits to 50 to 80 a year. testimony that we have received in the strategic arms committee in the armed services committee indicates that nobody knows what you are going to do with them and whether you need to build or the pits, but they want to build the facility just in case. you have 10,000 out there. why are doing this. never been answered other than

we might need it some day. god willing we might not need it some day. five to 10 a year. 50 to 80 the military doesn't know what to do with it. but n.s.a., wants to build it. the amendment says take $125 million of that and apply it to something useful like cleaning up. just keep in mind we are talking about an enormous amount of money for the production and facility of these pits and not just the facility for the plutonium, but it's also for the rest of the bombs. so it's probably going to be well over $10 billion and then you have the operating costs. so, be careful here. we are here into an expenditure over the next 25 years. i asked the military how are we

going to spend that. they said we don't know. they gave me a document that is a bunch of equations with no explanation of what the factors are. i'm asking for information and i was shut down in committee yesterday, but we ought to demand information, what's going on here, what are we talking about, a new long-range stealth bomber, new cruise missiles, new and new warheads and other countries are trying to match us. it is a nuclear arms race well under way. are we causing it or clearly part of it, russia and china are involved in this and matching technologies spending a vast amount of money. if we took a quarter of that and spent on education. what could we do for the american people. i hear the knock-knock of time

having run out. and that frightens me because time is running out on this issue and we need to pay attention here. i thank mr. simpson and his committee for paying attention to all of this. thank you very much. i yield back. . . ms. kaptur: which of your amendments are you addressing in your arguments right now? it is our understanding you were addressing the facility or your prior amendment? mr. garamendi: i'm addressing the nuclear pit facilities. the plutonium pit facilities. it's $125 million. can't all right -- ms. kaptur: all right. mr. garamendi: the mox was my colleague from nebraska's amendment. that was his amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: claim time in opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from idaho is recognized for five minutes.

mr. simpson: the amendment that you're speaking to on the pit production is an end of the bill amendment. and we are not yet to the end of the bill. mr. garamendi: i can come back and do it again? mr. simpson: there you go. mr. garamendi: thank you. mr. simpson: the amendment though, that was reported by the clerk was the mox facility that took $125 million out of the mox facility. that was the amendment that was reported by the clerk. mr. garamendi: that's whafse speaking to -- that's what i was speaking to. mr. simpson: you have another amendment that deals with pit production. mr. garamendi: if i could go back and talk about the mox facility now. i stand corrected. the $125 million was the mox facility amendment. mr. simpson: our argument and the debate we just had with the

gentleman from nebraska about the mox facility and the challenges that we face in the mox facility is the same as the debate we just had. while we ask for the department to look at the two alternatives, the down blend and the continuing mox, the armed services committee asks for a report on all five of the alternatives that they were looking at the cost and stuff. so i would oppose this amendment of taking $125 million out of the mox facility. i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. if we are in fact about to entertain the mox amendment i would love to speak in opposition to that amendment. mr. simpson: this is the amendment that's been reported. mr. clyburn: right. mr. garamendi: if the gentleman will yield for 15 seconds i'll explain the error and then i'll be out of the way.

mr. clyburn: sure. mr. garamendi: quite correct. there was an error on my point. this is a question of the mox facility. $125 million to be applied to other cleanup programs across the nation. that's it. i spoke on a different issue and the mox facility came up earlier. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you very much mr. chairman. as i said, i oppose this amendment and i do so because i really believe that this amendment would endanger our national security. by making harmful cuts to the fuel fastballcation facility that's located in south carolina. this facility would be used to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium, according to a binding international agreement signed

back in 2000 and reaffirmed in 2010. most of the plutonium has already been transferred to the savannah river site and thrts awaiting disposition through the m.o.x. facility. the president has requested the level of funding included in this bill to continue construction. facility's over 65% complete and it supports over 1,500 highly skilled jobs. any further delay will jeopardize our international agreements and will abandon the commitments that the country has made to the state of south carolina. when we signed and agreed to house these dangerous materials for our nation.

i want to close by saying, south carolina has developed what i call a level of tolerance for nuclear. we got there because of the commitment we made to this nation years ago with the manhattan project. and i believe that the state of south carolina this valley river site, have made significant commitments to secure this nation and i believe we would be breaking faith with the state to cripple this effort at this time because it's an agreement, the agreements are international, and i think we have a commitment to the state of south carolina to continue the

movement on this project. so with that i ask that this amendment be opposed. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield my time to the gentleman from ohio. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding, i appreciate it. i rise to speak on the nuclear regulatory commission. as a member of the house energy and commerce committee, which has jurisdiction over the n.r.c., our committee has taken a close look at the regulartory priorities and resource needs of the commission. the energy and power subcommittee oversees nuclear energy and the environment and the economy subcommittee has oversight over nuclear waste. i serve on both subcommittees. mr. latta: in both committee and subcommittees we've had hearings in recent years with the commissioners from the n.r.c. as well as other experts

and stakeholders. in these hearings we've learned important facts such as while the nation's fleet of nuclear reactors continues to operate safely, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the n.r.c.'s budget exceeds what is really necessary in light of current regulatory and licensing needs. we have further learned that and the n.r.c. chairman acknowledged the n.r.c. needs to be right sized to some degree. we have also focused on the fact that unlike most other federal agency, 90% of the n.r.c.'s budget is recovered through fees on licenses which are eventually paid through electric rates. this means that an outsized n.r.c. budget is paid for by the american people, both through taxes and their electric rates. we've also seen recent closures of nuclear power plants in the united states and fewer new plants coming online than anticipated a decade ago. in fact, even though the number of nuclear plants is currently decreasing, the n.r.c. budget has increased substantially compared to 10 years ago. i'd like to thank the appropriations committee and

chairman for providing funds that are appropriate under the circumstances. this budget gives the n.r.c. all it needs to ensure the safe operation of the nation's nuclear fleet without asking taxpayers and electric rate payers to may more than is necessary. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. mr. simpson: i thank the gentleman for his interest in this subject and i can assure that you subcommittee is very concerned also and we look forward to working with you and your committees as we try to right size the n.r.c. and all of the budgets that we will be doing in the future, as they try to implement, as you said, the n.r.c. is well aware of the fact that they need to right size themselves. as they try to implement -- as they attempt to enter 2020 projects. i appreciate it. thank you. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 30 line 3, naval reactors $1,320,394,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend.

for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. langevin of rhode island. page 30, line 10 after the dollar amount insert, increase by $2,426,400. page 30, line 16 after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $2,500,000. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment would support beginning the assessment of the feasibility of using lower enriched uranium and reactive fuel. using lower enriched uranium and navy reactive fuel can have security benefits related to nuclear nonproliferation. could lower security costs and supports naval reactor research and development at the cutting edge of nuclear science.

as we continue to face the threat of nuclear terrorism and as countries continue to develop, naval fuel for military purposes, the imperative to reduce the use of highly enriched uranium will become increasingly important over the next several decades. this is the time to begin investments in new technologies to address proliferation threats and to reduce reliance on highly enriched uranium. r&d would also support continued r&d within naval reactors after cutting edge of nuclear science and engineering which remains a critical capability. a naval reactor, as the director testified on march 24, 2015, before the house armed services committee, that with current technology using low enriched uranium fuel would only be feasible for aircraft carriers and will require an additional refueling at a cost of $1 billion.

he added, however, and i quote the potential exists that we could develop an advanced fuel system that might increase uranium loading and make low enriched uranium possible while still meeting very rigorous performance requirements for naval reactors on nuclear powered war ships end quote. mr. chairman this $2.5 million in funding would support early testing and manufacturing development required to advance technology for use in naval fuel. such a program, if successful, could yield significant benefits for nuclear nonproliferation and yield security cost savings. so with that mr. chairman, i urge acceptance of this amendment in order to stop this very important subject. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member rise in to claim time in opposition? the question is on the amendment offered by -- or the

gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. sounds like we have broad support for this amendment and with that i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. clerk will read. the clerk: page 30, line 13. federal salaries and expenses, $388,000,000. defense environmental cleanup $5,055,550,000. defense uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning, $471,740,000. other defense act tiffities

$76 ,570,000. power marketing administrations, bonneville power administration fund, expenditures from the bonneville power administration fund are approved for the shoshone hatchery not to exceed $5,000. operation and maintenance $6,900,000. operation and maintenance, southwestern power administration $47,361,000. construction rehabilitation, operation, and maintenance western area power administration. $307,714,000. falcon and amistad operating and maintenance fund $4,490,000. federal energy regulatory

commission salaries and expenses $319,800,000. general provisions, department of energy, section 301, no appropriation for the department of energy shall be used to initiate any program if the program has not been funded by congress. section 302. unexpended balances may be available for such activities established pursuant to this title. section 303. funds appropriated for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized for purposes of section 504 of the national security act of 1947. section 304. none of the funds shall be used for the construction of facilities classified as high hazard nuclear facilities under 10-cfr part 80. section 305. none of the funds may be used

to approve critical decision to -- critical decision two or critical decision three under department of energy order 41 .3b where the total project cost exceeds $100 million. section 306. none of the funds under the heading department of energy, energy programs, science may be use forward multiyear contract of $1 million unless the contract is funded for the full period of performance. section 307. none of the funds under the heading defense nuclear nonproliferation may be made available to enter into new contracts with the russian federation. section 308. none of the funds may be used to conduct a drawdown or exchange of petroleum products from the strategic petroleum reserve unless the secretary provides notice.

section 309. of amounts made available for national nuclear security administration weapons activities up to $50 million may be reprogrammed. section 310. unobligated balances are rescinded. title 4. independent agencies. appalachian regional commission $95 million. defense nuclear facility safety board salaries and expenses, $29,900,000 to remain available until september 30, 2017. delta regional authority salaries and expenses $12 million. degnaw lee commission, $10 million. northern border regional commission, $3 million. southeast crescent regional commission $250,000. nuclear regulatory commission

salaries and expenses, $1,003,233,000. office of inspector general $12,136,000. to remain available until september 30 2017. nuclear waste technical review board salaries and expenses. $3,600,000. office of the federal coordinator for alaska, natural gas transportation projects $1 million to remain available until september 30, 2017. general provisions independent agencies section 401. the nuclear regulatory commission shall comply with the july 5 2011 version of chapter 6 of its internal commission procedures when responding to congressional requests. title 5. general provisions.

section 501. none of the funds may be used to influence congressional action on any matters pending before congress. section 502, none of the funds may be transfered to any department except pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer authority provided. section 503. none of the funds may be used in contravention of executive order number 12898 of february 11, 1994. section 504. none of the funds may be used to con duct -- to conduct closure of judiciary functions or support activities associated with the yucca mountain repository license application. section 505. none of the funds may be used to further implementation of the coastal and marine spatial planning. section 506. spending reduction account. the amount by which the

applicable allocation of new budget authority made by the committee on appropriations is zero dollars. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report 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, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to transfer to the national technology laboratory into a government-owned laboratory or to consolidate or close the national laboratory. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from west virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckinley: i don't see my counterpart has arrived as yet but nevertheless, mr. chairman, there have been efforts to

privatize and consolidate the national technology laboratory, known as netl. this is to continue the present public-private partnership. netl is our nation's premiere energy laboratory. it uses 600 government scientists technicians and employees, coupled with nearly 1,200 private sector contractors. through this partnership, netl developed breakthrough research, carbon capture, enhanced natural gas exploration, production, and mission -- emission controls for our power plants, energy efficiency and steam and gas efficiency. and turbines. netl maintains that the research they produce will not be proprietary and is available to all utility companies.

small utility companies in areas like rural america where i come from would suffer if they went to privatization because they would no longer be able to perform the research and would be forced to buying the -- buy the technology as high costs. who would end up paying the high costs? the limited customers of these small companies through higher electric bills. people looking to prioritize and consolidate these laboratories seem to be searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does -- the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member -- without objection the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i rise to oppose the amendment. this would prevent the

department from trnsfer trance forming the national energy technology laboratory to into a private laboratory. it does research in support of a balanced research portfolio to increase safe usage of natural resources. i have no objection to this amendment being included in the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: 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 agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek

recognition? >> i ask that the committee call up amendment number three. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. babin of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 2 23, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. mr. babin: thank you, mr. chairman. let me begin by saying i strongly support programs and operations funded by the defense nuclear nonproliferation section of the underlying bill. keeping loose nuclear materials especially from places like the former soviet union states out of the hands of america's enemies is one of the most important duties of the department of energy. and the federal government as a whole. that being said, congress has the obligation to set requirements and criteria for every dollar of taxpayer money that we spend. especially funds that are sent or used overseas. in fact, my colleagues on the

appropriations committee already exercised this judgment with an additional provision in their bill that is very similar to the amendments that i will be offering today. section 307 of the underlying bill specifically prohibits any deal -- any d.o.e. nonproliferation funds from being used to enter into new agreements or contracts with russia. sending a strong signal to mr. putin and others that there are real consequences for their irresponsible and destabilizing actions of the last few years. my amendment adds this section to the end of the bill. none of the funds made available in this act under the heading defense nuclear nonproliferation may be made available to enter into new contracts with or new agreements for federal assistance to the islamic republic of iran except for contracts or agreements that require the islamic republic of iran to cease the pursuit, acquisition, and development of

nuclear weapons technology. if the last line of my amendment sounds familiar, it should. it's the very same language that congress defined as total disarmament of iran's weapons of mass destruction program when they passed the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and divestment act of 2010. that bill passed the senate by a vote of 99-0 and the house 408-8. and only two of the members who voted no on that bill still serve here in congress today. there's a lot to be worried about in president obama's deal with iran but two serious concerns trump all the others. first, how will iran properly deal with and dispose of 14,000 centrifuges and 9,700 kilograms of highly enriched uranium they're supposed to give up? if they're serious about not pursuing a bomb, what are they planning to do with the 6,000

centrifuges and 00 kilograms of uranium they get to keep under in keel? on the first question, the website vox hardly a right wing outlet, says that the disposal of these materials is an open question and that the negotiators punted on thousand to safely and effectively remove this material from iran. given that fact, there's every reason to believe that the d.o.e. nonproliferation account could be used for this purpose. the second question is even more troubling than the first. michael morel, former director of the c.i.a., said back in february that the potential iran nuclear agreement would limit iran to the number of centrifuges needed for a weapon but too few for a nuclear power program. a statement verified as true by politifact. iran's leaders have repeatedly said they have no interest in develop agnew clear weapon and over the years they have made

that promise to the international community, to gain relief from crippling economic sanctions. i don't trust iran. but even if i did, i would still say that we follow president reagan's charge that led taos victory when facing another nuclear foe, trust but verify. let me be clear. if iran proves that they are serious about giving up all their nuclear ambitions, i fully support using d.o.e. nonproliferation assets to get their nuclear materials safely out of that country. why, i'd even write the check myself to make sure that my grandkids don't grow up in a world where loose iranian nuclear material makes its way into the black market or into the hands of terrorists. but iran can't have one without the other. that's why my amendment will make sure that if d.o.e. signs a contract with iran to help remove nuclear material from iran, it will also stipulate that they're giving up all efforts to build a bomb. this is a commonsense amendment that reiterates the position of

congress and the promises made by president obama's negotiating team. i urge a yes vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? . ms. kaptur: i claim time in opposition. i rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. you and i share a great desire to prevent the spread of iran's nuclear capabilities. but the only thing that unfortunately your amendment does is endanger security including america's security. we can differ on how we work with iran on the broader issue of conditions for an agreement on sanctions and their nuclear program, but that is not the issue we are debating here today. what we are debating here today is the nonproliferation program

at the department of energy. stopping the spread of dangerous materials from the republic of iran is in our nation's interest. regardless of the outcome of the broader discussion. while there are currently no plans to work in iran and no funding that directly supports work in iran let me give you a few examples of what your amendment would stop, would preclude. number one, the department of energy's nonproliferation program might be asked to engage with iran to facilitate the removal of excess low enriched uranium or heavy water from iran. such an engagement could necessitate contracts to arrange for the packaging, shipment and disposition of such materials and would be prevented by the proposed amendment. secondly, the department of energy's nonproliferation program might also be asked to engage with iran to strengthen

iran's nuclear security or nuclear safeguard practices. such engagement could require contracts to provide technical expertise or support logistical arrangements and would be prevented by your amendment. there may be some who want to use any bill, including our bill, to make political points, but shouldn't we be more concerned about endanger ring american lives -- eng dangering american lives and the -- endangering american lives and other innocent lives around the world? wunalt you prefer this be in the united states -- wouldn't you prefer this be in the united states or with one of our allies than stored in iran? i can only speculate that our security practices are much better. this amendment has no place on this bill and i urge its defeat. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. babin: yes i would still ernestly urge an aye vote for this amendment. i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the semmed -- amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. babin of texas. the chair: 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: point of order is reserved. pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. babin: thank you mr. chairman. my amendment is similar in nation to the one just -- nature to the one just offered so i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks to ensure that my strong support for the nuke -- excuse me, for the defense nuclear proliferation program and the good work of the committee to properly fund it is once again reflected in the record. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. babin: i rise to offer this second amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill, to make clear to iran that -- and the world that the complete intrusive inspections of all iranian sites are non-negotiable and must be part of any deal with iran. my amendment adds this section to the end of the bill. none of the funds made available in this act under the heading defense nuclear nonproliferation may be made available to enter into new contracts with or new agreements for federal assistance to the islamic republic of iran, except for

contracts or agreements that include authority for the international atomic energy agency to conduct any time, anywhere inspections of civil and military sites within the islamic republic of iran. i was encouraged to see energy secretary, president obama's chief technical expert in the iran negotiations, quoted as saying we expect to have anywhere anytime access, to conduct nuclear inspections of iran. i share his view. without these full intrusive inspections, there's simply no way to fully and truly verify that iran is complying with the terms of any deal they supposedly agree to. unfortunately the iranians do not share the views of our secretary. shortly after the secretary made these comments to bloomberg news, iranian brigadier general responded by saying, not only will we not grant foreigners the permission

to inspect our military sites, we will not even give them permission to think about such a subject. they will not even be permitted to inspect the most normal military site in their dreams. unquote. apologists for iran say that they just need to say these types of things, as well as to maintain a limited nuclear stockpile, in order to save face. and to preserve their national pride. well mr. chairman, i didn't come here to help the iranians with their p.r. efforts. and neither did you and neither did anyone in this body. our job is to keep the american people and the free world safe and any deal with iran that lifts sanctions but is not coupled with strict inspection requirements isn't just worth the paper it's written on, it will make us less safe. history can be our guide on this very subject and one of his biggest but least discussed foreign policy failers, --

failure, president clinton in 19494 made a similar deal with -- 1994 made a similar deal with north korea that was supposed to bring them into the international community. sanctions were lifted, but we were given nothing but mischief and deception by the north koreans in return. international inspectors were obstructed and blocked on a regular basis. north korea continued to develop their nuclear program only now in the shadows and in hardened, underground facilities. in 2006 they successfully detonated a nuclear bomb and they continue to develop and test long range missiles and threaten their neighbors and the west. instead of weak being -- weakening the regime that controls north korea, the lifting of the sanctions and development of nuclear weapons allowed the kims to tighten their grip on the country and pass it along to the next generation. congress cannot allow president obama's flawed deal on iran to take us down this same path.

once again, if we're going to use d.o.e. resources and taxpayer money to help iran clean up the mess created by their nuclear ambition, it should come with conditions. the most important condition should be that they permit the international atomic energy agency to conduct any time -- anytime, anywhere inspections. history and our own energy secretary tell us that this deal won't work without robust and full inspections. i urge a yes vote on this amendment and make sure that those inspections do happen. i thank you, mr. chairman, and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in 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 existing law. the amendment requires a new determination and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard? the chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination as to the meaning of inspections that qualify as anytime, anywhere. the proponent has failed to fulfill his burden. 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. mr. babin: i understand the point of order but -- and i feel like we needed this amendment. but i look forward to working with the chairman and this body. thank you. the chair: the gentleman ises not recognized -- is not recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. hudson: i call up the hudson amendment. 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 $11.-- 11.1208%. it 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 223 the gentleman from north carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. mr. hudson: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise this evening to offer an amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill that would cut spending back to fiscal year 2008 levels. while i appreciate the work of the appropriations committee in crafting this important bill, i recognize that we should go further to cut reckless spending. washington has a spending problem. and we can't afford to kick the can down the road any longer.

my amendment makes an across-the-board cut of more than 11% to the bill in order to decrease the amount back to the fiscal year 2008 level, saving nearly $2 billion. for the taxpayers. we are over $18 trillion in our national debt. this is merely a drop in the bucket and we owe it to our constituents to cut even more, to restore fiscal sanity to washington. defense accounts are exempt from this cut because congress is expected to take up the national defense authorization act in the near future to address those programs. mr. chairman, when i first ran for congress i was repeatedly asked if you were elected, what programs would you cut? the answer i gave was, first, i would go back to 2008 spending levels and then we'll start cutting. my amendment does just that and allows us to return to the point where we can finally get serious about paying down our national debt and saving future generations from economic

disaster. urge my colleagues to support this amendment -- i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: yes. mr. chairman, i'm opposed to this amendment because it's sort of an untargeted proposal and our budget in many places on this bill is very tight. we know the net effect will be to reduce jobs and hurt the middle class in a sect where are america needs help -- sector where america needs help and that is energy independence and the modernization of our infrastructure. the result of the amendment will be less investment in water resource infrastructure all over this country at a time when global trade sin creasing. energy research and -- trade is increasing. energy research and development programs which lead us to future energy, not past energy resources, which create good jobs and have substantial returns on investment, will be harmed. at a time when unemployed

americans lose jobless benefits and many young families struggle just to survive, we should be creating jobs and securing the american dream through investing in our energy future including innovation and investments in the ground. in every all-of-the-above energy sector we have, not tearing it down. just since 2003, the united states has spent $2.3 trillion, trillion, importing foreign petroleum. think about that one. this is a vast shift of wealth and thousands upon thousands of jobs are connected to energy production. from our country. this amendment only exacerbates this shift of wealth from the american middle class offshore. not something i support. and i doubt the gentleman really wants to support that. this bill funds critical water resource projects, supports science activities necessary to breakthroughs, to lead us to new energy futures, and contributes importantly to our

national defense through vital weapons, naval reactor research and nonproliferation funding. we must make certain decisions to lead our country forward. there's a lot more people that live in this country, that lived here in 2008 or 2003. also one of the reasons that we have a little bit of uptick in some of the accounts is there's more american people now. and so you have to do some things in terms of the ports, our ports filled up, we have to get that out of there in order that we can get larger ships into our ports carrying more goods. so we can't live in the past. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. let's take america to the future and not backwards. . >> would think gentlelady yield? ms. kaptur: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman. mr. sitchson: this resolution we are considering meets what

was adopted. -- mr. simpson: not decreases in the increetses but decreases in spending. there are broad cuts to reductions and this is an approach i can't support. i'm particularly concerned about the impact this amendment would have on our critical infrastructure as mentioned by the gentlelady from ohio and the basic research needs prioritized in this bill. while the gentleman has attempted to exclude national security activities, i've got to tell you in all honesty, national security is not the only thing the federal government does. we do do other things. we maintain our water ways and ports and other activities this amendment would industrial the detrimental impact on the security of nuclear materials at the idaho national laboratory. these accounts are very complex and reductions to each account must be carefully weighed and that is what this subcommittee has been doing and holding hearings on for the last four months. so i urge my colleagues to vote no and i thank the gentlelady for yielding.

ms. kaptur: reclaiming my time i want to say to the author of the amendment that i said something to the chairman of the ways and means committee today, i think he took it rather lightly but i said, here we are discussing our appropriations bills on the floor, we're trying to balance the budget, but you know what, your committee is sitting back. there are no revenues on the table. and mandatory spending isn't on the table. and you're trying to take it out of the hides of the discretionary spend chg is such a small part of the entire federal budget. you know what he did? he twirled around and kind of laughed me off and walked toward the back of the chamber. i didn't think that was a very responsible answer. i respect the gentleman being down here tonight offering your amendment, i would encourage you to talk to the head of the ways and means committee because to try to get us to shrink even more than we've done in many of our accounts and, by the way, 11 other appropriation bills coming after us that have been asked

to do the same, isn't fair to the american people. we need all hands on deck. all hands on deck. so i thank the gentleman for attempting to be responsible but i really think you ought to look to some of the other committees that are sitting back while the burden is on our committee to make these decisions alone. and that isn't right. the speaker pro tempore: the jovepl's time has expire. the gentleman is reek nizzed. the gentleman from north carolina has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. >> i acknowledge the point the gentlelady made, you can't cut discretionary spending to get out of debt. we need more revenue and need to address the mandatory spending side. mr. hudson: i agree whole heartedly. we need more revenue, to get people back to work and we also need to look at saving social security and medicare, shoring them you are for future generations. she makes a valid point. i want to acknowledge that chairman simpson has actually made real cuts over the last

few years. he also makes a valid point that we have actually cut discretionary spending in real dollars. but i would say to you, mr. chairman we could do more and i just believe that we are -- look at the path we're on we're heading if we don't spend another dime toward a horrific debt crisis in this country, we just can't afford to sit back and not deal with that. so i believe we do need to work on the mandatory side for sure because that's the real driver of our debt. but in the meantime, let's go back to prestimulus time. let's go back to 2008 spending levels because i don't remember the federal government starving for money. i don't remember the federal government just barely being able to function because it didn't have enough revenue back in 2008. i think it's imprudent for us to do that. it's about jobs. it's about the economy. it's about our future generations, our children and grandchildren, who are going to have to pay the bills that we're running up right now system of mr. chairman, i would ask my colleagues to please support the amendment and with

that, i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. 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 not agreed to. does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. hudson: yes, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the a a -- on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. engel of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223 the gentleman from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york for five minutes. mr. engel: thank you mr. chairman. on may 24, 2011, president

obama issued a memorandum on federal fleet performance that required all new light duty vehicles in the federal fleet to be alternative fuel vehicles such as hybrid, electric, natural gas or biofuel by december 31 of this year. my amendment echos the president's memorandum by prohibiting funds in this act from being used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles unless that purchase is made in accordance with the president's mem ran tum. i have submitted identical amendments to 15 different appropriations bills over the last few years and every time they have been accepted by both the majority and the minority. i hope my amendment will receive similar support today. global oil prices are down, we no longer pay $147 per barrel. but despite increased production here in the united states, the global price of oil is still largely determined by opec. the primary reason is that our cars and trucks run only on

petroleum. we can change that. with alternative technologies that exist today. the federal government operates the largest fleet of light duty vehicles in america. over 635,000 vehicles. more than 50,000 of those vehicles are within the jurisdiction of this bill, being used by the department of energy, the department of the interior and the army corps of engineers. when i was in brazil a few years ago, i saw how they diversified their fuel by greatly expanding the use of ethanol. people there can drive to a gas station and choose whether to fill their vehicle with gasoline or ethanol. they make their choice based on cost or whatever criteria they deem important. i want the same choice for american consumers. that is why i'm also proposing a bill in this congress as i have done in the past which will provide cars built in america to run on another fuel instead of or in addition to gasoline. they to it in brazil, we can do it here, it would cost less than $100 per car to to so.

in addition to expanding the role these alternative technologies play will help break the leverage foreign governments hold over us. it will increase our domestic security and protect consumers. i'm delighted that my republican and democratic colleagues have unanimously supported this bill for the last several yearsism ask that my colleagues support the engale amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does any member rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sanford of south carolina. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the

following, section a, the amount otherwise made available by this act for department of energy advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan program is hereby reduced to zero dollars. b, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to provide a loan under section 136 of the energy independence and security act of 2007 42 united states code 47013. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 23, the gentleman from south carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes. mr. sanford: i thank the chairman. i rise because too often at the federal level we find ourselveses rewarding or occasionally funding corporations that would do what they do irregardless of what we do at the federal level. it's been a point of contention with my democratic colleagues. too often we continue to pay for programs that have outlived their original purpose. i think that too often we find ourselves looking the other way

at programs that don't work and/or have wasted tens upon tens of millions of dollars. it's for those different reasons that i rise to offer this amendment which would indeed defund the department of energy's failed advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program. it would do two things. one, eliminate the $6 million in funding that would go to this program and two, it would prevent any further lending from the -- this program's unused lending capacity. the reason i think doing those two things are awfully important is, one, this is indeed a case of paying corporations to do what they would already do. again, this has been a point in the budget debate we had earlier today from both republican and democratic colleagues alike saying we shouldn't be paying corporations to do things they would already do. two, this is indeed a stimulus program. however well intended in 2009, it has outlived its purpose and

we are not in the economic situation that we found ourselveses in in 2009. in fact, this program's authority expired back in 2012 and i think it's recognition of this congress that the fact that some of the program hasn't work sod well as to why that has indeed occur. finally this program has seen real losses. 40% of its loans have gone bad. according to g.a.o. report, actually wrote up some of those losses and i -- what i might do is share for one moment with my colleagues, as part of a government reform look at this program, there was a letter to then-secretary chu, february 28 2012, from one of the applicants, in it he quotes the chairman of a fortune 10, not 100, but fortune 10 company, and this is in the reference to the letter, your former deputy jonathan silver, that this program lacked integrity. that is, it did not have a

consistent process and rules against which private enterprises could rationally evaluate their chances and intelligently allocate time and resources against the process. there can be no greater failing of government than when -- than not to have integrity when dealing with taxpayer citizen issues. for a variety of reasons i offer this amendment. with that, i retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the yom is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i want to share a story. i was at one of our energy labs in california, walked into a research lab, a cummings engine was up on the board and i said what's going on in here? the answer was, we're trying to understand the science of combustion. i said you mean it's 2014 and we don't understand that yet?

they said no congresswoman, we really don't know what happens inside an internal combustion chamber and they were studying what happens when fuel ignites in that chamber to make it more energy efficient. i was surprised to learn that every single automotive company depends on the results of that research. i come from automotive america. when the industry fell to its knees in 2008 because we never had a trade policy that opens closed markets like japan, korea, and china, i thought to myself, i never thought i'd live to see this day. after the wise decision of a majority in this congress in the o-- and the obama administration, we lifted the automotive industry in this country out of the corrects and as i watched it recover with vehicles like the cruise with the wrangler which is leading the list, when i look at what ford is doing in terms of its ecoboost engine, i see an industry being reborn in our

nation. i wouldn't do anything -- and the economic growth that comes with it. the incredible muscle that it provides inside the spine of this economy not tan general shall growth but real wealth -- not tangential growth, but real wealth. i wouldn't do anything with the closed markets we're facing abroad not to support advanced technology in this country. we're competing -- what we're competing against in other places are countries disguising themselves as companies. and they're able to subsidize their industry, close their market, and prevent even our parts going into their original equipment and we can succeed most importantly by advancing automotive technology. advance vehicle technology. this particular program allows that components -- component suppliers as well as original equipment benefit. i can tell you, though the companies do research

themselves, they don't do the kind of basic research that is necessary to provide the incredible breakthroughs that can come through the department of energy. if i said to you 25 years ago, would you believe that 10% of gasoline blends are ethanol and renewable fuels you'd probably say, congresswoman you really, you've been staying up too late. too many nights of the week. but in fact it's happened now. now we're going to move to 15% renewable blend. who would have thought that was possible? who would have thought we'd get 40 miles a gallon vehicles on the road? yet we're moving toward that. flexible fuel. this is not by accident this program supports just what it says. advanced technology vehicle manufacturing. . given concerns that have been expressed regarding appropriate oversight of these programs, i think the gentleman -- the net effect of your amendment is going to be to eliminate

oversight of this program which i don't think we want to do. we want to make it work for america's sake. i oppose your amendment and i urge its defeat. i would be pleased to yield to the chairman. mr. simpson: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i also have to oppose this amendment. while i appreciate the gentleman's position on the atvm program, the elimination of this funding would hurt federal oversight of the program, of more than $8 million in loans already given. the committee recommendation includes the $6 million as a reasonable amount to provide oversight and direction to the existing loan portfolio and no more. i don't think the gentleman wants to actually eliminate the oversight of the program -- of the loans that are out there that are going to be running for the next 30 years. so i must oppose the gentleman's amendment in order to ensure that there's proper oversight of taxpayer funding. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. ms. kaptur: i thank the chairman very much and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> i thank both of my colleagues for their

counterpoints and understand absolutely this motion -- this notion of competitiveness. mr. sanford: the world is flat and we're in a global competition for jobs, capital and way of life. but if you look at, again, the fundamentals of this program, i have a g.a.o., this is a government accounting office report, that says the cost of participating in this program outweighed the benefits to companies. it's a g.a.o. report. not a private sector report. not a right wing report. i think it's also interesting, in pulling this letter that was, again, written by a supplicant to the agency itself said that the due diligent process in their attempting, and they ultimately quit but ultimately in their attempt to get a loan was more than 1,175 days. its point in this letter is that that is more than tenuous and had more to do with their ceasing and desisting. i would also make this point.

they've only made five loans. if we were depending on these five loans for innovation in new technology in the way that internal combustion engines work or the way that we burn fossil fuel, we're in real trouble. but five loans is what we're talking about. i would also make this point. i think at some point, given the scarcity of resources that we do deal with in washington, d.c. we have to at some level make a distinguishing divide between big companies i mean, forged market cap is $63 billion. alcoa's is $16 billion. would not these funds be better used going to small innovators as opposed to these large multinational corporations that i think in many cases are the beneficiary of corporate largess, but corporate largess that i don't think serves the taxpayer well or according to

these industry analysts, the industry as well. ms. kaptur: i would be pleased if the gentleman would yield me 10 seconds. i can make you a very good recommendation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. 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. sanford: on that i'd ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote? pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cleaver of missouri. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, during fiscal year 2016, the limitation relating to total project costs in section 902 of the water resources development act of 1986, 33, united states

code 2280, shall not apply with respect to any project that receives funds made available by title 1 of this act. the chair: 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: without objection, the point of order is reserved. pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from missouri and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri for five minutes. mr. cleaver: thank you mr. speaker. this amendment would waive the limit on total costs for army corps projects which are set forth in section 902 of the water resources development act of 1986. the law states that a project cannot be funded by more than 20% of the project's total authorized cost. this amendment would waive that limitation for any project that receives funds made available by title 1 of this act. 20 or 30 years have passed since congress originally authorized many of the current federal flood control projects.

unfortunately the large backlog of projects, incremental funding by congress, and unforeseen circumstances has resulted in costly delays for projects across this country pushing many over the now outdated authorized limits. many of these projects are so close to the finish line and this language could help them cross it. mr. chairman mr. speaker, this language is vital to the conditionation of valued flood control projects in my congressional district. the datsun industrial project in missouri has completed its first three phases. however, without an increase in its authorized total cost, the project cannot move forward on the final phase. currently, the area has a flood wall unconnected to the rest of the project and investments of $250 million at risk. if the project could be fully funded at the increased total

amount, it could be completed in fiscal year 2017. projects that have reached their 902 limit can apply for a project cost modification. however, the application and review process routinely takes several years to get approval from the army corps headquarters. these valued projects in which the federal government is already invested -- has already invested millions of dollars are languishing in two, three or more years during the preview process. another control -- review process. another control project in kansas city has over $200 million in investments projected -- protected by this project, including a major interstate highway. it was authorized in 1999 and is ready for the final phase. but did not receive federal funding last year or in this year's budget request because of pending cost modification application, which began in 2013. mr. speaker, just in my district there are three flood control projects that have been -- that have pending cost modification applications, that were started in 2013. i can only surmise that this trend has continued in just