tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN May 25, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 80. the nays are 339. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: first amendment offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 167. the nays are 251. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, 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. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 144. the nays are 275. the amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.
the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 5055 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of he union has had under consideration hor 5055 and has come to no resolution thereon -- house resolution 5055 and has come to no resolution thereon.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to commit on s. 2012 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.
the committee will come to order. members, take your onversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: mur superintendent to house resolution 744, i call up s. 2012 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: an enact to provide for the modernization of the energy policy of the united states and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 744rks an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-55 is adopted and the bill as amended is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on energy and commerce. and the chair and ranking member of the committee on
natural resources. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, and the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and insert remarks extraneous material on s. 2012. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. whitfield: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in support of the house amendment to s. 2012, the energy policy and modernization act of 2016. in december of last year, the house passed h.r. 8, the north
american energy security and infrastructure act of 2015, which is a large portion of the language we are considering today. this legislation together with provisions from the natural resources and science committees would be the first major piece of energy legislation in eight years, and it addresses many outdated aspects of our federal energypolicy. -- energy policy. at this time i yield to mr. upton, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. happy birthday, mr. chairman. it's been nearly a decade since we last considered an energy package like this, and in that time a lot, a lot has changed. continued innovation and discovery across the energy sector brought about a new landscape of abundant supply and tremendous potential for economic growth.
mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. that includes the gallery. he house will be in order. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, this has been a multiyear, multicongress effort and a lot of work has gone into making sure the bill we put forward will support the future of american energy is truly comprehensive. together with our colleagues i am proud to be moving this legislation one step closer to becoming the new reality for energy producers and consumers across the contry. this bill is about jobs. it's about keeping energy affordable. it's about boosting our energy security here and across the globe. h.r. 8 is the embodiment of an all of the above energy strategy. one of the most important provisions is modernizing and protecting crit -- critical energy infrastructure including
the electric grid. from new threats including bad weather, from climate, cyberthreats, and physical attacks as well. it helps to foster and promote new 21st century energy jobs by ensuring that the department of energy and our labs and universities work together to train the energy work force and entrepreneurs of tomorrow. it makes energy efficiency, including federal government energy efficiency a priority. and focuses less on creating new mandates and subsidies to incentivize behavior and more on market changes and using the government as an example. finally, it helps update existing laws that brings some added certainty to permitting processes and helps to promote using our abundant resources to aid in diplomacy. for example, by streamlining the approval process for projects such as the interstate natural gas pipelines and lng export support, it will allow
businesses at the cutting-edge of research to put the full scope of energy abundance to work for consumers both here and abroad. this allows us to provide and energy lifeline to our allies across the globe. provisions within h.r. 8 and others that have been included in the amendment under consideration today also seeks to capitalize energy sources that the administration has rejected. h.r. 8 priss much needed reforms to the hydropower licensing process as well, a clean energy source that together with nuclear provides some 25% of the united states' electricity with no greenhouse gas emissions. it's imperative that hydropower remains a vital part of any future. the all-of-the-above energy strategy means the future does not need to be a series of choices between the environment and economy. by introducing a 21st century regulatory reform that reflect our energy abundance and with
the d.o.e.'s quadrennial energy review as a guide, this bill will help bring about needed reforms and continued innovation across the energy sector. so, the legislation before us today is the product of a thorough assessment of the gap that we face between our state, energy regs, and budding energy supply closes the gap. i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves his time. and the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush. mr. rush: i want to thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. rush: mr. speaker, when members of the energy and commerce committee first began to address a comprehensive bipartisan energy bill, in the beginning of 2015, there was a
nse of hopelessness -- hopefulness, a sense of opt nism that the -- optimism that the committee will once again set the standard for working together to get things done on behalf of the american people in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation. mr. speaker, many of us on the minority side had enormous expectations that we would draft a bill that would move our energy policy forward. in a matter befitting the challenges facing our nation in this the 21st crentry. -- century. specifically, mr. speaker, from my perspective, a comprehensive energy bill would need to modernize the nation's aging
energy infrastructure, change a 21st century work force, and address the critically important issue of man-made climate change. unfortunately, mr. speaker, none of these issues are addressed in the bill that we re voting on here today. this 800-page hodgepodge of republican and corporate riorities is nothing more than a majority wish list of strictly idea local deals, many of which the minority party imposes and the obama support ation do not and the american people do not support.
outside of a few minor crumbs thrown in to represent the priorities on the minority party, including my legislation, the bill almost contains nothing that the american people could support or rally behind. specifically, mr. speaker, the underlying bill, h.r. 8, does little more than take us backwards in terms of energy policy. while also providing loopholes to help industry avoid accountability and to avoid urther regulation. 8 contains the provision that is would actually increase energy use and energy cost to
consumers, putting industry interests above the public interest. the bill's hydropower title weakens long-standing environmental review procedures and curtails state, local, and tribal authority over projects in their respective lands. mr. speaker, the bill u.s. to an ines the outdated dependency on fossil fuels while failing to offer any constructive forward-looking policies to incentivize the development and deployment of clean energy. as you know, mr. speaker, many of the bills contained in the house amendment include controversial provisions that
the minority party has repeatedly imposed at both the committee level as well as here on the house floor. additionally, mr. speaker, many of these same poison pill amendments and bills have already received veto threats from the obama administration. so, mr. speaker, with a bill that fails to modernize our energy infrastructure, that fails to invest in job creating clean energy technologies, that fails to cut common pollution, it is safe, mr. speaker, to proclaim to this body that we ill have a long, hard, and cumbersome road ahead if we are ever to reach a point of finding consensus, bipartisan
consensus. unfortunately, mr. speaker, i cannot support this bill before us and i urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, who is a member of the energy and commerce committee and is quite familiar with energy issues. i'd like to yield him three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. walden: i thank my colleague from kentucky for his great work on this legislation and his thoughtful leadership on these issues over many years. mr. speaker, for all your work on this legislation to make much needed reforms to modernize energy policy into something that better promotes affordability, reliability, and ensures we have the energy we need to continue growing jobs in our communities, i say thank you. among the many strong
provisions in this bill, several are particularly important to the west and our rural communities across oregon, central, eastern, and southern oregon. for farmers and ranchers the klamath basin, the bill ensures they will get a formal seat at the table when there's consultation with federal agencies on decisions under the e.s.a. irrigators in this area have long been impacted by these decisions and it's only fair they should have an equal seat at the table with other entities during these discussions. perhaps one of the timeliest provisions, mr. speaker, as we head into forest fire season in the west, are the provisions that provide for streamlined planning and would reduce frivolous lawsuits and speed up the pace of forest management across our public lands. this house, four years in a row nourks after we passed this, has considered much needed legislation to fix the management of our federal forest. now the senate will have an opportunity to join us in this effort as we amend this
legislation and send it on over to the senate. our communities, our forested rural communities have waited long enough. they have choked on smoke summer after summer long enough. they have seen their water sheds get destroyed by catastrophic fire. it's time to fix the problem. a couple other specifics, mr. speaker, our national forests across eastern oregon, forest managers hands are tied by a one-size-fits all all rule. the measure was implemented temporarily in 1997. but still has not been lifted 20 years later, just about. it represents really poor science. it only serves a source of frequent appeals in litigation. and repealing this will give our forest managers the flexibility they need to use modern science to manage the forests for healthier conditions. last month the bureau of land management released their plan for oregon's unique o.n.c. lands in southern, western
oregon and frankly it's a terrible plan. despite a clear statutory requirement that they manage these lands for sustainable timber production and revenue to the counties, dare i say jobs in the communities, the b.l.m.'s plan goes the other dayway, it locks up 75% of the lands and harvests less than half the minimum level directed by the o.n.c.a. this is a job kirl. this bill includes bipartisan legislation that i wrote working with my colleagues from oregon, representatives defazio and schroeder, to cut cost, increase timber harvests, and directs the b.l.m. to revise their flawed manage the plan to reflect underlying act. mr. speaker this is good energy legislation, this is good energy resource legislation, this is sound environmental legislation, i urge its passage. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the outstanding
ranking member of the full committee, mr. pallone of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for four minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to thank mr. rush for managing the bill so successfully, i believe, or the opposition to the bill, i should say. mr. speaker, today we are considering the house amendment to s. 2012, the mistitled north american energy security act of 2016. this legislation once again shows us the vastly different paths taken by the two chambers of congress. on the one hand, this senate energy bill that the house intends to go to conference on, it passed by a vote of 85-15 because it's balanced and because it contains a number of nonenergy provisions that the public supports overwhelmingly such as permanent funding for the land and water conservation fund. on the other hand, the house energy bill was the result of a highly partisan process that
the president threatened to veto. as we prepare to head to conference, we have a second chance to do things right and to produce a new bipartisan energy bill. unfortunately, that is not what we are doing today. the republican majority has decided to replace the consensus senate bill with a new pro-polluter package that dwarfs the original h.r. 8. when crafting the house amendments before us today, the caucus attacked 30 extraneous bills to an already bad piece of legislation that the president promised to veto. while a million of these new additions are noncontroversial bills, many of these provisions are divisive, dangerous and have drawn veto threats of their own. the house amendment to s. 2012 weakens protections for public health and the environment, undermines existing laws designed to promote efficiency and does nothing to help realize the clean and renewable energy policies of the future. and of course the so-called
energy infrastructure bill provides absolutely no money to modernize the grid or our pipeline infrastructure. the house amendment is a backward-looking piece of energy legislation at a time when we need to move forward. and let me highlight some of the most harmful provisions solely from the jurisdiction of the energy and commerce committee. the bill eliminates the current presidential permitting process for energy projects that cross the u.s. border, such action would create a new weaker process that effectively rubber stamps permit applications and allows the keystone pipeline to rise from the grave. it makes dangerous and unnecessary changes to the ferc natural gas pipeline citing process. it harms electricity consumers at all levels by interfering with competitive electricity markets to subsidize ungenerating facilities and these facilities would be rejected by the market in favor of lower cost natural gas and renewable options. it strikes language in current law that requires federal buildings be designed to reduce
consumption of fossil fuels. it creates loopholes that would permit hydropower operators to dodge compliance with environmental laws, including the clean water act, and gives preferential treatment to electric utilities at the expense of states, tribes, farmers and sportsmen. and it contains an energy efficiency title that if enacted would actually result in the net increase in consumption and greenhouse gas emissions compared to current law. so frankly, mr. speaker, this is not a legitimate exercise in legislating and it speaks volumes about the total lack of seriousness with which house republicans are approaching this conference. we should be trying to narrow the differences and move closer to the bipartisan senate product. instead, we're going in the opposite direction, voting on an 800-page monstrosity energy package that republican leader has stitched together from pieces of pro-polluter bills that passed the house only to die in the senate or on the president's desk. voting once on these fundamentally flawed ideas was more than enough. we shouldn't make a mockery of
the conference process and using the house floor to try to raise the dead. house amendment -- the house amendment to s. 2012 has one central theme binding its energy provisions, an unnarrowing devotion to energy of the past is the republican's party 19th century vision to the future of u.s. energy policy in the 21st century. i strongly oppose the house amendment, obviously, and urge my colleagues to do the same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois reserves the time and the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, is recognized. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. lamar smith, who is a real expert on energy issues and i recognize for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: mr. speaker, first of all, i want to thank the gentleman from kentucky, chairman whitfield, for yielding me time and i'm pleased to support the house amendment to the senate energy policy modernization act. it includes the three energy
titles from the science committee's house-passed legislation, h.r. 1806, the america competes re-authorization act of 2015, and h.r. 4084, the nuclear energy innovation capabilities act. provision d is both pro-science and fiscally responsible and sets america on a path to remain the world's leader in innovation. america's economic and productivity growth relies on government support of basic research to enable the scientific breakthroughs that fuel technological innovation, new industries, enhanced international competitiveness and job creation. title 5 re-authorizes the department of energy office of science for two years. it prioritizes the national laboratory's basic research that enables researchers in all 50 states to have access to world-class user facilities, including supercomputers and high-intensity light sources. the bill prevents duplication and requires d.o.e. to certify
that its climate science work is unique and not replicated by other federal agencies. title 6, likewise, re-authorizes d.o.e.'s applied research and development programs and activities for fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017. it restrains the unjustified growth in spending on late-stage commercialization efforts and focuses instead on basic and applied research efforts. provision d requires d.o.e. to also provide a regular strategic analysis of science and technology activities within the department, identifying key areas for collaboration across science and applied research programs. this will reduce waste and duplication and identify activities that could be better undertaken by states, institutions of higher education or the private sector in areas of subpar performance that should be eliminated. title 7 proposes to cut red tape and bureaucracy in the d.o.e. technology transfer process.
it allows contractor operators of d.o.e. national laboratories to work with the private sector more efficiently by delegating signature authority to the directors of the national labs themselves rather than d.o.e. contracting officers for cooperative agreements valued at less than $1 million. also included is h.r. 4084, energy subcommittee chairman randy weber's house-passed nuclear energy innovation capabilities act. it provides a clear timeline for d.o.e. to complete a research reactor user facility within 10 years. this research reactor will enable proprietary and academic research to develop supercomputing models and design next generation nuclear energy technology. h.r. 4084 creates a reliable mechanism for the private sector to partner with d.o.e. labs to build fism and fusme prototype reactors at -- fusion prototype reactors at sites. it sets the right priorities
for federal-civilian research which enhances innovation and u.s. competitiveness while reducing spending and the federal deficit by over $550 million. so i encourage my colleagues to support this bill and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves his time, and the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. bush. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to an outstanding, hardworking from the energy and commerce full committee, ms. castor of florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. castor: i thank the gentleman. i thank ranking member rush. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the republican amendment because it is a giveaway to special interests, and it's a missed opportunity to craft a bipartisan package of energy policies that meet the challenges of the 21st century and boost america's
clean energy economy. the g.o.p.-led congress is out of sync with the american public and out of touch with what is happening in electricity generation across america. the future is about energy efficiency. geothermal, renewables like solar and wind power and biomass. in fact, the u.s. energy information administration says renewable energy is the world's fastest growing energy source. that means innovative cost savings, energy investments for our neighbors and businesses back home. that means we're going to create jobs through the clean energy economy and at the same time reduce carbon pollution. instead, in this amendment the g.o.p. doubles down on dirty fuel sources, log rolls 36 bills into a single package that in many cases eliminates environmental reviews. and the experts say the bill will actually accelerate climate change. so if the republican energy package was a car it wouldn't just be stuck in neutral, it would be stuck in reverse
because it hearkens back to the energy policies of decades ago. rather than america's growing clean energy of the future. let's not go backwards. let's move americans forward, put money back in the pockets of our hardworking neighbors. i urge the house to reject the g.o.p. amendment, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida yields back. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, is recognized for his time. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i'd like to inquire how much time is remaining on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 3 3/4 minutes. -- 4 3/4 minutes. and the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, you have four minutes. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from california, congressman valadao. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. valadao: mr. speaker, i appreciate the opportunity to
speak today. i want to thank my colleagues in both committees of jurisdiction here, of energy and commerce and natural resources. the language that they are allowed to put into this bill, my water bill into this energy bill, this amendment, is something that truly makes a difference for the constituents of the central valley we've been suffering over the last few years, and what it's done has devastated our communities. we got unemployment numbers reaching as high as 30% and 40%. we see numbers in some smaller communities as high as 50%. and to see these things happen in our communities is a total tragedy and it doesn't have to happen. all we need is some commonsense legislation. we tried reaching out. we passed legislation out of the house a few different times. we negotiated and tried to get somewhere, but we weren't able to do it and so finding another way to get onto our senators' desk so they can actually take some action and get it to the president's desk is of utmost importance. i appreciate all the leadership and help from both committees to help this move forward, and
i thank you for your time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. mr. rush, the gentleman from illinois, is recognized. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the fine gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcnerney: well, i thank ranking member rush, and i want to thank my colleagues on the energy committee, including the chairman of the subcommittee, for your hard work. i'm pleased to have several bipartisan measures included in the legislation, including reforming hydropower licensing, addressing efficiency in federal buildings, enhancing the energy water nexus, verification of siper resilient products for the -- cyberresilient products for the grid, update of our national policy on the future of the grid and smart grid capable labels on products to enhance consumer choice. these are items i believe should remain in any final
energy package. unfortunately, the republicans have loaded the bill with nonconstructive language. one such provision is language from h.r. 2898 that would harm california's delta and the economies of the families, farmers and communities i represent. there's no way this language should be part of an energy package. it's just an add-on. it just shows how desperate the republicans are to push through this bad policy. because of this i regrettably oppose this legislation. mr. speaker, our nation's energy and electricity systems need upgrades and modernization. climate change needs to be addressed. the senate companion bill does not address these issues so, again, unfortunately i have to oppose this legislation, and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from kentucky.
mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i'm going to continue to reserve. i believe we have the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i want to yield this time one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. . mr. gare why mendy: i want to say -- mr. garamendi: i want to say we have been here before. we argued last night about undertaking the waters wars of california again. here we are again, this time as last night, legislation dumped into this bill that would gut the environmental protections of the delta and san francisco bay, destroy the fisheries, destroy the economy of the delta and water for millions of people. why would we want to do this? presumably to take care of the water interest of the san joaquin valley. not southern california. but the san joaquin valley alone. makes no sense whatsoever. it is the wrong policy.
we have to let science govern the delta. we have to operate the delta based upon the very best possible science available, do the pumping, the exports. consistent with the protection of the ecology and the environment of the delta. that's fish, that's the land, that's the water systems, the vironmental, the e.s.a., the clean water act, and biological opinions cannot be overrun. yet this legislation does exactly that. we ought to vote no on this bill. these particular sections should be remove. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from illinois reserves. and the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush. mr. rush: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time we have on this side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has a minute and a half. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i yield myself the minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for the
remainder of the time. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i just for to re-emphasize that the minority side to support this bill in its going forward, then there must be provisions included in the bill that would address the deeply felt concern that our members have continually expressed. specifically, mr. speaker, our members seek funding to modernize the nation's energy infrastructure. our members want to see investment in clean energy technologies. our members want to see 21st ces to train a century work force.
our members want to see policies to transition our it economy away from the energy sources of the past and towards the sustainable energy sources of the future. mr. speaker, without these provisions this bill won't go very far. mr. speaker, i encourage all members of this house to vote no on this energy, so-called energy bill. it's a relic. it's backwards looking. it puts the nation on a reverse course and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back his time of the the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, is recognized. the gentleman has 3 minutes and 3/4 minutes. mr. whitfield: thank you very much. to our friends on the other side of the aisle i want to thank them for working with us
on this legislation. i know it's difficult for -- to please everyone. any time you talk about energy today, of course, people raise the issue of climate change. and i might say that america does not have to take back seat to any country in the world on climate change. we have 64 different government programs addressing climate change. so i think america's doing more on that issue than anyone else, but we have other problems that we have to deal with as well. for example, the u.s. information agency, energy information agency estimates that power outages in america cost americans at least $150 billion annually. and one of the reasons we have a lot of power outages is because of our infrastructure needs, but also because of regulations coming out of this administration. and one of the provisions in this bill requires ferc to
analyze the impact on electric reliability of new federal regulations that have many experts concerned. so we want an analysis of all these regulations and its impact on reliability. we have heard a lot of discussion about the need for work training programs for people to work in energy, in renewable sector and all sectors. and we had a serious discussion with our friends on the other side of the aisle as we were marking up this legislation and we basically agreed on a provision to provide training for african-americans, for hispanics, for women, and for other minorities to get them involved in the energy field, which we all wanted to do. and we even provided some money for that training program. but we had asked, if we do this we want to change a couple of
provisions in the 2005 energy policy act. for example, in that act there was a prohibition against the federal government in federal guild buildings using any fossil fuels after the year 2030. we think that's pretty draconian. so we said, we are not going to mandate the use of fossil fuels, but in keeping even with the president's statements about an all-of-the-above energy policy, we wanted a provision in there that would repeal that so if there was a time in the future when we needed fossil fuels because fossil fuels still providing about 50% or 60% of all the electricity in america, even more than that, coal and natural gas, so this provision simply says, we are going to allow it. we are not mandating it, but the government has the option after 2030 of using fossil fuel
in government buildings. we think that is a sensible approach. but our friends on the other side of the aisle had dug in the sand so much they refused that. we will not support it if that's in there. so some these provision that is we all wanted, we don't have in here. but we are trying to do the best that we can do. i think this is a major step forward for the american people. and i would urge everyone to support s. 2012, the energy policy and modernization act of 2016. and the house amendments to it. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back his time.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas for 15 minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise in strong support for the inclusion of h.r. 2647, the resilient federal forest act, and the house amendment to senate 2012. the house passed h.r. 2647 with 262 bipartisan votes last july and it has been waiting for senate action since then. we passed the bill nearly a year ago. we knew we were facing a severe
wildfire season. we were correct. more than 10.1 million acres of forestland burned across the country, the largest number of acres ever recorded. over 4,500 homes and other structures were destroyed. mr. speaker, these fires destroyed valuable resources and emitted in the order of magnitude of 100 million tons of carbon in the atmosphere while building up the renewable energy stored in our forest of 30 million gallons of gasoline. mr. westerman: tragically these fires also claimed the lives of seven firefighters who worked courageously to stop the spread of these wildfires into communities. when the house passed h.r. 2647 last summer, we hoped that the passage would spur action from the senate. unfortunately, that has not been the case. we have waited patiently for the senate to offer its own legislation so we can sit down and negotiate a compromise.
however, that has not been the case, so we should again ask the senate to act on forestry reform. .r. 2647 is a simple idea that the forest service and the b.l.m. need to do more work to restore the belt and resilience of our nation's forests. we understand the problem clearly. our forests are overgrown due to years of neglect. this problem cannot be solved immediately, but we have an obligation to our rural communities to do everything we can to help mitigate the problem. in drafting this bill, we included provisions which would allow our federal land management agencies to be able to shorten lengthy environmental review periods when they already understand the environmental impacts of a proposed management action. this bill also encourages and rewards collaboration between diverse stakeholder groups. the natural resources committee recognizes the chilling effect of unnecessary litigation and
how that can have -- and prevent needed restoration work from occurring in our nation's forests. the committee heard testimony from a variety of experts who testified about how restoration work is not being proposed by the forest service for fear that it will be litigated. my bill takes the simple step of requiring anyone who litigates a forest management project to post a bond if they are challenging a project put forth by a collaborative effort. it is not unreasonable to ask a litigant who threatens an urgently needed project to put forth by -- who threatens a needed project that's put forth by diverse group of stakeholders to have some skin in the game. this bill also recognizes the reality that we must rethink the manner in which we fund the fighting of catastrophic wildfires. the forest service is burdened with having to transfer funds from other accounts in order to cover the cost of wildfire suppression.
just last year the forest service was forced to transfer $243 million from other agency accounts during one week during august in order to pay for firefighting costs. these transfers disrupt the very work that reduces the risk of wildfire in the first place. h.r. 2647 addresses this issue by allowing catastrophic wildfires to be treated like any other natural disaster. the departments of agriculture and interior would be able to access fema's disaster relief fund to help fight wildfires when all appropriated accounts are exhausted. this provision was drafted in a fiscally responsible manner to ensure that fighting these fires do not become a drain on our budget. mr. speaker, this bill will not make a difference in the health of our nation's federal forest overnight. but it provides urgentsly needed tools to help our land management agencies to reduce the threats threatt of catastrophic wildfires in our
communities -- reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires in our communities. i urge my colleagues to support the house amendment to senate 2012 so we can go to conference and work out a solution to the many problems facing our nation's federal forests. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. today i rise in opposition to the litany of bad environmentally harmful bills -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the litany of bad environmentally harmful bills that the house republican leadership is offering in place of the bipartisan senate energy bill. mr. huffman: the senate bill, s. 2012, was sound policy and represented real progress on many important issues, but the package we are considering today is a dangerous threat, not only is this package bad
for drought stricken states like california, but includes a wish list of give aways for the fossil fuel and mining industries. it undermines vital and dangerous species act protections and undermines public review. this is not a promising start to conference negotiations. why are we wasting our time on a package of partisan bills that we have considered before and which we all know will never be signed into law? even worse than the substance, republicans shot down the request to consider this bill under an open amendment process. i, for one, would have recommended many changes if we were allowed to consider this very controversial omnibus bill under regular order. just to name a few, the house amendment we are considering today continues the unending threats that congress poses under current management to the health of the bay delta and the vital salmon run that is are so important to california and to my district. not to mention specific threats
to the san joaquin river and the klamath and trinity river systems and salmon fisheries and people that depend upon them. the house amendment we are considering today would bring back from the dead the undeniably harmful keystone x.l. pipeline. the house amendment we are considering today would rollback building codes. it would be harmful to forest management policy and wildfire mitigation because it uses a shortsighted model for funding instead of bringing forward the actual fix to the fire borrowing problem, the bipartisan legislation by representative simpson and schroeder, that i supported each of the last several years, but we never seem to be able to actually bring to a vote in this house. urge my colleagues to te for the senate original bill so we can get that legislation and all of its useful provisions over the
finish line and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. westerman: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wyoming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lummis: this will improve the stewardship of public lands, water and resources throughout the west. i'm pleased to see western priorities included, from drought-stricken california to strategic and on federal lands. they are critical to national defense and makes possible amidwestern yits like smartphones. on tribal lands it will empower tribes with more authority over their land. the best forestry bill we have seen in years came from westerman and he just talked
about it. the sportsman's title will restore much needed transparency under the equal access to justice act. this helps small businesses and social security beneficiaries when they have to take the federal government to court. but it's being used on endless public lands litigation with nsequences for sportsmen access and other uses of public lands. this would reinstate the wildlife services rulemaking regarding gray wolfs. i urge my colleagues to support and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from arkansas reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. huffman is recognized. mr. huffman: i yield to the
gentleman from stockton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcnerney: we had a debate last night about a familiar issue, california's drought and something that impacts all of us including oregon and washington state not just south of the delta. h.r. 2898 was included in the energy and water appropriations bill and it's alarming that the house republicans have aattached the same language. this shows the desperation of the house republicans to force this bad legislation through. as i said last night, these provisions would further drain fresh water from the california delta. these provisions would damage the ecosystem and harm the communities i represent. it harms some people to benefit others just because one side has the power to do it. i represent the 7th largest
agricultural county in the nation so i understand the needs of farmers and rafferers and the impact water has on the ability to produce the nation fruits, nuts and vegetables. unfortunately h.r. 2898 would weaken the endangered species act and undermining environmental protection and exascerbates a water-worn west. in fact, the state and federal agencies have been working effectively over the past few years to maximize water deliveries to the delta communities down south. state agency has maximized what little water exists. lack of water not operational flexibility. water that flows to the ocean pushes the salt water away from our farms and allows a path to the ocean. the majority hasn't
re-authorized water smart. we haven't supported investments in recycling. they have cut funding for the partment of interior's efforts. how do we prepare for the future either in wet or dry years? this house isn't willing to make those kinds of investments. our nation loses two trillion gallons of water because of aging infrastructure. could i have 30 more seconds. mr. huffman: i yield to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. mcnerney: there are investments that can be made to recycle water. for example, the state of israel recycles 90% of its water, california recycles 15%. the republicans have pushed language that results in diminished fish populations, worst saltwater intrusion and
permanently damage our most productive farm land in the world. this is not a solution but a step backward. i'm disappointed with this bill and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman. mr. westerman: i recognize mr. wittman, the gentleman from virginia for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: i support the house amendment to s. 20 12 the energy policy act. the house amendment includes the sportsman's heritage act known as the share act which passed with bipartisan support. the share act is a group of commonsense bills that will safeguard against new regulations that impede outdoor sporting activities and protect second amendment rights.
these packages were similarly introduced and passed in the 112th and 113th congresses. shooting and fishing is engrained in culture and values. par taking in these activities play significant parts in the lives of americans. sporting activity occurs on our nation federal lands. u.s. forest service and bureau of land management impede access to federal land for outdoor sporting activities. because lack of access is one of the key reasons they stop participating ensuring the public has reliable access to our nation's federal lands must remain a top priority. the share act does just that. one of the key provisions of this bill will increase and sustain access for hunting, fishing and shooting on federal lands for generations to come.
it protects sportsmen and women by efforts of the federal government to block federal lands from hunting and fishing activities. it also in the pack acknowledge provides tools to create and maintain recreational shooting ranges on federal lands and so sportsmen and women can hunt and fish on adjacent federal lands. the package protects second amendment rights. it defends law-abiding individual constitutional rights to keep and bear arms on lands managed by the corps of engineers and ensures that hunters are not burdened by outdating laws from bows being transported. this will sustain america's rich traditions, improve access to our federal lands for outdoor sporting activities and help ensure that future generations of sportsmen and women are able
to enjoy activities this country holds dear. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this important achievement and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from arkansas reserves and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: i yield one minute o the gentleman from california. mr. costa: i rise to support the amendment in the energy and policy modernization act that was reflected in the legislation, h.r. 2898 of which i'm a co-sponsor. it is an important effort to fix california's broken water system. we cannot continue to kick this can down the road. unfortunately, this is what has happened. farms and farmworkers are desperate to have washington recognize that we cannot
continue the status quo. our nation's food supply is an issue of national security and we are dependent upon it. we don't think about it that way but it is a fact. the drought isn't going to get better. with climate change, it will continue to get worse. passing this bill is part of a continuing effort to try to get something done. the federal government cannot ignore the drought and the devastating impacts not only in the san joaquin valley but western states wide. parts of the valley are without water and we must raise this issue every way we can and that's why we are doing this. getting this legislation passed is part of an effort to fix california's broken water system. we are hoping for an el nino. guess what? it didn't happen. we have a 5% allocation, last year was zero. zero is zero. means no water. let's try to work together and
put aside the political posturing not only for the farmers, but american families who count on having affordable food on their dinner table every night. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. westerman: i recognize for two minutes the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. mr. lamalfa: thank you the gentleman from arkansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you for your help and all your good work on your vast knowledge of trees and forestry. today, the house has an opportunity to advance real reform and modernize the outdated policies that are preventing responsible management. title 1 of division c includes language developed through exhaustive bipartisan, bicameral
negotiations and passed repeatedly by the house. he house has taken this up ensures that senators can no longer ignore the crisis. this chamber heard about california's water woes and those claims that don't meet the threshold of facts. some policy claims that this bill prioritizes one area over another. the vast majority, i can say this includes the protections and senior water rights and safeguards the most fundamental water right of all, those have access to it. northern california water districts and farmers strongly support this bill. the measure accelerates surface water storage infrastructure projects that over 2/3 of californians voted to expand the fund. one of these projects would have saved one million acre-feet
enough to supply eight million californians. you can't expect 40 million people to survive on infrastructure. we have heard claims about how it could harm species but it lives within the biological opinions. this measure improves population monitoring techniques and technology, wildlife agencies currently base orders to cut off water on humps not data. and finally this bill allows more water to be stored and used to drain winter storms when the water is highest. even as delta flows surpass 2016 acre-feet, during the water saved was even less than by percent than during low
years. mr. westerman: i yield the gentleman from california 30 seconds. mr. lamalfa: the last opportunity of filling one of ur largest reservoirs is full. it helps all the people of california. why wouldn't we want to do this? we can't wait any longer, time to end the obstruction and address a crisis that threatens our state's strong economic livelihood. if san francisco can get the water they need how is it fair districts in central valley get 5% when water is aplenty. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. huffman is recognized. mr. huffman: calling the bill bipartisan does not make it so. let me share with my colleagues what senator feinstein has said.
she said it contains provisions that violate environmental law. california senator boxer said the bill is the same old same old and ry ignite the water wars. the state of california not only opposes these provisions but has opposed all previous incarnations of this bill. . i'll close with what the "fresno bee" said about this bill -- i'm not closing, i'll yield in a moment to ms. matsui. the "fresno bee" call this is bill a g.o.p. wish list with little to no income and a water bill draft floated by democrats. i would yield three minutes to the gentlelady from sacramento who has long fought to protect the delta and the interests of
her region. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. matsui: i rise in strong opposition to the house amendment to s. 2012. though this bill contains some important provisions overall, it raises barriers to our clean energy future by reversing important progress we have made to curb emissions and combat climate change. house republicans have made a bad bill worse by attaching harmful provisions that will have a negative impact on consumers, public health and our environment. mr. speaker, i am particularly concerned that this energy package is being used to advance irresponsible, short-term policies in response to california's drought. the provisions included in this bill will pit one region of our great state against another instead of providing a balanced,
long-term solution. we need to be taking an all of the above approach to our drought by advancing wastewater recycling projects, investing in groundwater storage, and encouraging new technologies that allow us to responsibly manage our water usage. i actually grew up on a central valley farm. thinkmy grarntes farmed in rigby, california, and i grew up in danuba. i understand that the debate over water is complicated and personal to so many. but i believe we can balance the needs of our farmers and urban centers while protecting our drinking water supply and our ecosystems. our american families deserve an energy package that brings us forward, not backwards. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the energy policy modernization act of 2015 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is
recognized. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, our distinguished, hard-work, and above all compassionate and fair majority leader, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i thank the wrelt for yielding. mr. speaker -- i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, there are places in this world that hold people's imagination. washington, d.c. new york city and paris. the great rolling plains crossed by american pioneers. and the himalayan mountains touching into the heavens. now i was blessed, blessed measure i knew, to grow up in such a place. a place called california. it is so distinctive and impressive, it's unreal. warm, sun drenched beaches. snow capped mountains. great cities, forests, deserts,
farmland growing fruits, nuts, and vegetables, stretches as far as the eye anen -- as the eye can see. it's a place always filled with promise and potential. in many ways, california's history mirrors the history of america. it started as nothing much. but people came and they built it. we grew and prospered. we became the envy of the world. and like america, today's california faces great uncertainty. some problems are the same, shared by the entire nation. but california and almost the entire western united states are enduring something much worse. the drought. the drought has lingered for years. el nino helped alleviate some of the problem. but the drought continues.
communities have less water. farmland that once fed the world now sits dry. people are losing their livelihoods and their hope. there's no way to end the drought, but it doesn't have to be as bad as it is. now, water that can be stored is being lost. bureaucrats release fresh water out to the sea. our most valuable resource is being wasted. this matters today because we are considering a bill be -- a bill from our colleagues in the senate, the energy policy modernization act. now before the senate passed this bill, they added several provisions, including language to address water issues in washington state. i have to say, mr. speaker, i'm very happy that the senate brought this up. after all, if we're going to address the water issue in
washington state, we should address the water issue for the rest of the west. so we included in our amendment to the legislation representative valadao's western water and american food security act. we passed this last year in the house so we could build more water storage and increase our reservoirs while still allowing water to flow to the sacramento delta. water is so necessary for our constituents that we aren't stopping with this bill. we've already began consideration of the energy and water appropriations bill which includes even more provisions to deal with the drought. there's is -- there's a simple message for our democrat colleagues in the senate. house republicans won't stop. we will keep passing bills until our people get the water they need. because once we get water, so much of the uncertainty facing
california and the entire west will be brushed aside. you see, california and america as a whole face a crisis of bad governance. many look around and see life isn't getting any better. they wonder if our nation is in decline. but that's not who we are. not as americans, and not as californians. our best days are not behind us. we will not quietly manage our decline. i reject the idea that we've reached the height of our shining city on the hill and that it's time to come back down to the world of limits and uncertainty. the choices -- the choice is ours to make because as americans we write our own future. that's what this vote means for me. and for every californian. the laws governing water are broken.
the bureaucracy is working against the people. the system is holding us back. has to is not how it be. california has long been a reflection of america's promise. we also helped america to realize its promise. we led the way in media, technology, agriculture, and even space. bring the water back and i know we'll lead america once again. and help to restore hope in our future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman, reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. huffman. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. i share the majority leader's view that california is a unique and iconic and majestic place. i would only add that part of what makes it so includes the great rivers and iconic salmon runs in california, from the central valley to the north
coast where i represent and the incredibly important bay delta estuary, the most important, ecologically important estuary on the west coast of the americas, which despite all the damage we've done to it over the past 00-plus years, still teems with waterfowl and wildlife and still supports salmon runs that are the staple of the commercial salmon fishing industry not just in california but in washington and oregon. that's why groups who advocate for these fisheries, folks who make their living by depending on these fish, are uniformly against the republican water bill that has been added in by way of this amendment. fishing jobs matter too. it's part of what makes california great. there's no one that understands that better than my colleague, mike thompson, who i'm pleased to yield three minutes to right now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding time.
mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this amendment to the senate bill that's before us. california is in a true state of emergency when it comes to water. we're in a multiyear drought. even after this winter's el nino, only one of our state's reservoirs is filled to capacity. it's having a serious impact on families, on farms, on fisheries, on businesses across california. we need science-based, long-term solutions to our state's water challenges and this bill is not the solution. it won't help our state to improve water efficiency and make the most of the water we have. it's base odd then misguided assumption that our water crisis can be remedied by pump manager water south. the truth is, we haven't pumped more water south because there isn't enough water. we're in a drought. the provisions we're debating today redefine the standard by which the endangered species act
is applied. this will weaken the law, increase the risk of species extinction, and lead to costly litigation. you'll hear the other side talk about how this is necessary because we're letting millions of tpwhrons of water wash out to sea in order to protect fish. when that water could have been pumped to farmers in california's central valley. the reality is that water needs to keep moving through the delta so that salt water doesn't wash in. jeopardizing water quality for farms and for communities. inwhich -- including the cities in my district that rely on the delta for their fresh water supply. it's important to note that this bill sets a dangerouses predebit for every other state in our country. california has a system of water management rules that have endured for a long time but this bill overrides water regulations developed by californians themselves and tells local resource managers and water districts how to administer
their water supplies. if we pass this bill, we're telling every state in america that we're ok with the federal government undermining local experts and state laws from coast to coast. we need real solutions that are based on science and that work for everyone. if you can't -- if you can set the science aside in california, you can do it anywhere. you have no protection for your resources. this isn't about farmers versus fish. it's about saving salmon, saving cities in the dell tark delta farmers, north of delta farmers, and resources across our country. i'm not insensitive to the supply and demand reality of california's water. i understand the concerns of central valley's farmers. remember, i am one. and ag is big in my district too. but if your well runs dry, the solution isn't to steal water from your neighbors. this bill isn't the solution. it's wad for the millions who
depend on the -- it's bad for the millions who depend on the delta for their livelihoods, bad for california and bad for states across our country. i urge all my colleagues to vote no on this measure and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. thompson, yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, reserves. the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman is recognized. mr. westerman: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. valadao. mr. valadao: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. valadao: thank you, mr. speaker. i always enjoy listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle say that this is theft that we're stealing water this picture has been used a few times, this graph. this is the amount of water going through the delta in 2015, this is what is exported. in 2016 the amount of water going to the ocean. this is not stealing from one person's well in their community to another community. this is water going out into the
ocean that they're advocating we spend more taxpayer money to desal nate to bring it right back. when it comes to protecting the delta, which we all want to do, i would actually recommend that the communities around the delta stop dumping their sewage in it. with over 300 million gallons of sewage being dumped in the delta, on a daily basis, you would think that would have a bigger impact on the delta species and everything else going on there than a little bit of water being pumped. there were periods this past winter alone where there was 150,000 cubic feet of water per second going through that delta. we're asking for 5,000. and at those high periods, maybe 7,500. think about that. 150,000 cubic feet per second and we're asking for 7,500. as if we're going to pump the delta dry and have a huge impact. i still argue dumping your sewage in the delta would have a bigger impact than anything
else. if you're concerned about the species, you'd think you'd take the legislation we have in there that has to do with the predator species, the striped bass that is consuming baby salmon and is also consuming the delta smelt. we know it's happening. i've seen studies that point to as much as 98% of delta smelt is consumed by the striped bass. my why not take a look at the legislation in this bill right now and adopt it and have a real impact and save the species for future generations. it's time to stop playing games and hurting other communities, we're looking to capture a little bit of watter that goes to the delta, a lot was wasted this year. we're not trying to steal from anyone else. it's a fair and equitable ask. it has little impact on the delta and if you want to protect the delta, let's look at every part of it including the sewage, including the invasive species. i think there's a lot of room to compromise and i appreciate the opportunity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arkansas
reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. huffman is recognized. mr. huffman: as they talk about water that is somehow wasted and available to be taken for any person, it requires us often to remind them that this delta water system would not be available to millions for california for drinking water or central valley for cultural irrigation because that outflow maintains water quality in this very complex water system. and it is also incorrect and we continue to hear it regularly that huge amounts of water in the last few years have been wasted for environmental purposes. the state resources control board in california estimates that in 2014 only 4% of all noff in the bay dealt are --
delta watershed, there are benefits that sustains water quality and other values in the system. in 2015, the state estimates it was 12% of the runoff in the watershed that made it through the system for environmental purposes only. it is important we bear those facts in mind and i will now ield one minute to the gentleman the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 45 seconds left. mr. desaulnier: this debate reminds me of the old expression in california, whissy is for drinking and water is for fighting. as someone who has represented the delta in local and state government and now federal level for 25 years we are doing well in california. an expert on water resources
wrote an article how california is winning the drought. by almost every measure except perception california is doing fine, not just fine, california is doing fabulously and grown 27% more than the rest of the country and the agricultural industry has grown. more than half of the fruits and vegetables grown in the united states come from california farms and 2013, the third growing season farm employment and revenue increased. i would ask my colleague to oppose the bill because it jeopardizes the economy of california the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arkansas has one minute remaining. mr. westerman: perfect policy is even rare or often impossible. good policy is hard work good
data, common sense and a little bit of give and take. mr. speaker, this is good policy. it's fair policy. and most importantly it will provide for a better way of life for americans. i urge support for senate 2012 as amended and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 744, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on the third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the clerk: an act to provide for the modernization of the energy policy of the united states and or other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
handcuff >> in its current form. the clerk: mr. peters moves to recommit the bill to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house with the following amendment. mr. peters: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read. mr. wittman: i would like to eserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. pursuant to the rule the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. peters: my amendment expresses something scientists know to be true and something recognized everywhere in the world that climate change is real and influenced by human activity. we need congress to get on board with the response and not stand in the way. that's important for three reasons. first, we are to lower the rate
the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, we need federal action. it is from burning fossil fuels which raises levels of co-2, methane is many times more potent than co-2 and the significant driver of climate change. greenhouse gas emissions affects food supplies, wildfire preparedness and our quality of life. that's why just last month the united states signed the paris climate agreement to reduce emissions by 26% by 2025. as a country that contributes 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, we pledge to do our part. this follows the executive order on climate change which established national sustainability goals for the federal government. we need congress to support these efforts, not get in the way. second, all new national plans and projects should consider
these effects of climate change as we make decisions about what and where to build infrastructure and to permit projects. extreme weather conditions are at an all-time high. one of my first votes was to fund a response to superstorm sandy with an appropriation of $60 billion off budget. regions around the world are experiencing intense droughts, longer wildfire seasons and water shortages and flooding and sea levels are rising at twice the rate they were 20 years ago threatening to cause erosion, powerful storms, contamination of agriculture. the federal permitting and construction learns the lessons from these events and we account for the effect of rising seas, increasing winds and drought on the buildings and infrastructure that we approve and build. we have to build resiliencey in federal decision making, not dodge the question. a bipartisan bloomberg report estimated if we do not arrest
climate change, between 66 billion and $106 billion worth of coastal property in the united states will be below see level by 2050. we need to bring our federal practices into line of what is happening outside the united states congress, the only entity in the world with the collective head in the sand on the reality of climate change. 175 countries are on board, that's how many signed the agreement. 154 companies are on board with paris and businesses across the country have committed to put forward climate targets by reducing carbon emissions. apple, nestle, kellogg, starbucks are the private businesses that have included sustainability and alternative energy as smart business practice. and the department of defense, our own military is on board acting now to address the impacts of climate change. in january, the pentagon
released a directive stating, quote, the department of defense must be able to adapt current and future operations to address the impacts of climate change in order to maintain and effective and efficient military end quote. mr. speaker, let's take it from the rest of the world, the american private sector and the pentagon and consider climate change in permitting and siletting. some of my colleagues, the simple facts may be frightening, but u.s. leadership is not about politics or ideology, but about security ensuring the health of our citizens and families and increasing the unprecedented economic dunt of the clean energy revolution. the stakes have never been higher. the time to act is now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. does any member seek time in opposition?
mr. whitfield: i seek time in opposition and withdraw my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the jesser vacation is withdrawn and the gentleman from kentucky is recognized in opposition to the motion to recommit. mr. whitfield: i rise in opposition to this motion to recommit. the main objection here and the basis of the motion to recommit relates to climate change and contrary to the gentleman's statement that the house does not recognize climate change, all of us recognize that the climate is changing. we do, however, have some significant differences with the president of the united states and some other members of the house and senate in that we, many people, do not believe that climate change is the number one issue facing mankind. there are many other issues
there as well. the united states does not have to take a back seat to anyone on this issue. the congressional research service recently reported that over18 federal agencies are already administering climate change programs. there are over 67 climate change programs in the federal government. we are already spending in excess of $15 billion a year on climate change. now one of the problems that we have is that the president has been acting unilaterally on this issue. he went to copenhagen and made agreements and went to paris and entered the united states into an agreement without any consultation with the u.s. congress, without discussing with the u.s. congress on what he was agreeing to, but he used that agreement in order to have
the e.p.a. issue their clean power plan and the clean power plan in which e.p.a. ash fororarily sets co-2 limits every state in america, where each state would have to have their state implementation plan adopted by this september except that since congress was not involved and many people throughout the country were rightly concerned about this unilateral action, they took the only thing available to them and that was to file a lawsuit to stop it. and what happened? it went all the way to the united states supreme court. and i might add that the supreme court issued an injunction to prohibit the implementation of the president's clean energy plan until there could be further discussion about it. i might also say congress had many hearings on the clean
energy plan. that was our only involvement. we certainly were not part of the plan, but it was interesting that a professor from harvard university, who is generally considered liberal, who taught the president constitutional law, came to congress and testified that the president's clean energy plan, to use his words, not the president, but the professor's words, was like tearing up the constitution and throwing it away. so we agree that climate change is an issue. we simply disagree with this president's unilateral action in trying to decide the way it's addressed. and so that's why we feel like that this energy bill that is on the floor, we are amending the senate bill because we want to use some commonsense approaches
so we can continue to bring down co-2 emissions and allow our economy to expand to create jobs and we don't have to take a back seat to any country in the world. the u.s. is doing as much as any country in the world on climate change. i might also say that we do -- we expect that our carbon dioxide emissions will remain below our 2005 levels through the year 2040. now you look at india, you look at china and look at many developing countries and many parts of europe, they do not meet that standard. so let's use common sense and that's precisely what we attempt to do with our amendments to senate 2012, the energy policy modernization act of 2016 and i would respectfully request that we deny this motion to commit or
recommit and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the previous question is ordered on the motion to commit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. and the gentleman from california. mr. peters: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the order of the house of today, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 744, i call up h.r. 5233, the clarifying congressional intent in providing for d.c. home rule act of 2016 and ask for immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5233, a bill to repeal the local budget autonomy act of 2012 to amend the district of columbia home rule act to clarify the respective roles of the district government and congress in the local gudget process of the district government and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore:
pursuant to house resolution 744, the bill is considered read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the me on oversight and government reform. the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentlelady from the district of columbia, ms. norton, each will control 30 minutes this chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. fay chets: i ask -- mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five ledge slative days to revise and extend -- legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 52 3. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i want to start by thanking the delegate from the district of columbia, ms. norton. she pour her heart and soul and passion into for this country.
we disagree on this issue, we've agreed on some issues and disagree on others but i want to note how much i appreciate her passion and her commitment and her desire to represent her constituents as vigorously as she does. i also want to thank the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, for introducing r. 52 p -- 5233, the clarifying congressional intent and his leadership on this issue. he's the subcommittee chairman who deals with this issue. he spent considerable amount of time working on this topic, working with city leaders, getting to know the city, and working with them and i appreciate his proactive and tissue proactive approach and the man for the which he approach this is and his thoughtfulness in this sensitive but important topic. we're here today to discuss the bill that would do just as the title says. clarify the congressional intent behind the d.c. home rule act
passed in 1974. first a little bit of background about the need for this legislation. in december of 2012, the district of columbia council disregarded clear limitations found in the home rule act of 1973. in doing so it passed the local budget autonomy act, lbaa, in an attempt to remove congress from the district's budgeting process. if the bill is implemented, it would allow the district government to appropriate money without the need for federal action. in doing so, council violated clear legislative authority granted to congress by the constitution. article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the constitution gives congress plenary authority over the district of columbia. as with other powers, congress may delegate some of its powers to the local government which it did when it passed this ehome rule act back in 1973. 1974. absent the delegation, the district has no legislative
power. as enacted more than 40 years ago, the home rule act was designed to allow the district to self-govern on truly local matters. at the same time it preserved a matters ongress in that could affect the federal budget. today's legislation clarifies the original intent behind the home rule act and reinforces the intent of congress, the founding fathers and the constitution. importantly the language of the home rule act makes clear it's not authorizing the district authority over its budget. in fact, mr. jacques dupuis, then council to the house subcommittee that drafted the home rule act, testified this month at our committee he, said, quote, congress did not intent to -- intend to delegate the d.c. council or voters authority
over local revenues in the charter process. his recollections are supported by the legislative history, particularly a dear colleague letter sent by then-chairman diggs. it indicated the compromise language was drafted with the explicit intention of maintaining the congressional appropriations process for the district funds. i believe chairman diggs' letter meeves no confusion as to whether congress intended to give the district budget autonomy in the home rule act. therefore it's clear the district acted beyond its authority to grant itself budget authority. today's legislation will clarify the original intent of the home rule act, pardon me, and address any pending legal questions currently working their way through the courts. h.r. 5233 will make clear the local budget autonomy act of 012 is not legally valid and will ensure the congressional intent behind the home rule act is preserved. it will also prevent a potential
violation of the anti-deficiency act, protecting officials from criminal and civil penalties. ultimately, unilateral action take bin the district to subsume congressional authority sun acceptable. h.r. 5 33 recognize this is need for exclusive congressional authority and stewardship. i therefore urge my colleagues to support of the bill and place budget authority for the district firmly back in the hands of congress this esole place where it was intended to be -- the sole place where it was intended to be located. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she wishes to use. ms. norton: i'm happy to announce my friendship with the chairman of our full committee, i thank him for his kind words. i only hope he will come to -- two past paths
immediate chairs of the committee have come, that is to support budget autonomy for the district of columbia, chairman davis, former chairman davis and former chairman issa. i rise in strong opposition to this bill. this bill that would repeal a law approved by 83% of the district of columbia voters. would nullify a court ruling and would permanently take away the authority of the 700,000 d.c. citizens and their elected officials to spend their local funds without congressional approval. this bill manages to be unprincipled and unpractical -- impractical at the same time. it is profoundly undemocratic. for any member of congress in
the 21st century to declare that he has authority over any other jurisdiction except his own. it is -- it also would harm the finances and operations of the district of columbia. as a matter of fact, the district of columbia budget autonomy act is already in effect. the district council has begun the process of passing its first local budget without the assistance of federal overseers. therefore, this bill would be the most significant reduction in the district's authority to govern itself since congress granted the district's limited -- granted this edistrict limited home rule in 1973. as a lawyer myself, i am the first to concede that lawyers differ about the validity of the
budget autonomy act. even when the district was in the process of enacting it. what is indispensable, though, mr. speaker is that the budget autonomy act is now law, the budget autonomy act has been litigated, and there is only one judicial opinion in effect. in march, the d.c. superior court upheld the budget autonomy act. you believe in the rule of law, upheld the budget autonomy act. no appeal was filed. and the court ordered d.c. employees to implement it. the he superior court of district of columbia then evaluated each and every legal and constitutional argument you
will hear brought forward today. about whether the budget autonomy act violates the u.s. constitution. the district of columbia home rule act. the federal anti-deficiency act. and the federal budget and accounting act. all of that, every last one of it, every last provision, has een litigated. house leadership made the very same arguments in an amicus brief they filed. whole gang of folks. anxious to see that this one jurisdiction can't handle it own -- its own money. the court nevertheless found, indeed disposed of, all of these
arguments. specifically, the court upheld the budget autonomy act and held that the home rule act preserved the then-existing 1973 budget process, but did not, and this is essential here, did not prohibit the district from changing the local process in the future. the charter does not -- the charter is like the constitution. congress knew how to say, don't change budget matters discussed in this document. it did not do so. it had to be interpreted. and it was interpreted. the senate of the united states, at the time of the home rule act, passed budget autonomy. for the district of columbia. so you can thank the biggs
compromise all you want to. the compromise was budget control now is in the hands of the congress. but you will note, we have left room in the charter for budget control to come to the district. that was the compromise. there was no compromise that said that the district could never have any jurisdiction or any final say over its local budget. this is, after all, the country that went to war over taxation without representation. but you folks -- you're saying you folks can raise all the money you want to but it doesn't mean anything unless the congress of the united states passes your budget. the district followed the charter procedure. that was in the diggs budget. to pass the budget autonomy act.
and as the court noted, congress had the authority to pass a disapproval resolution. while the district budget -- while the referendum was over here for 30 days. but did not disapprove it. the federal courts also have evaluated the validity of the budget autonomy act. a federal district court indeed did find the act to be invalid. but then look at what the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia did. after receiving briefs, reading them, hopefully, and hearing oral arguments, the higher court , the court of appeals for the district of columbia, vacated the district court decision altogether, meaning that that
initial decision against the budget autonomy act had no force or effect. instead of issuing a decision on the merits or sending the case back to the lower federal court, the federal appeals court, without explanation, simply remanded the case to the superior court of the district of columbia, which then issued the only existing court ruming on the validity of the -- court ruling on the validity of the d.c. budget autonomy act. is there rational reason for opposition to budget autonomy? after all, budget autonomy is not statehood. it's not independence. it doesn't take away in of your -- any of your much-vaunted power. the budget act has no effect, indeed, on congressional authority over the district. under the