tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN May 25, 2016 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
member. the fact is you can still have oversight. you can still -- you can still do what's necessary to make sure that contractors of various sites -- at various sites are doing their job. it doesn't mean you just have to pay them no matter what, but this reality is this administration, as we all know, is using their pen and their phone to execute executive orders and they are punishing the state of north carolina because they don't like something that north carolina did. . it is in a court. the froth should not have the ability to come in and prejudge the outcome of that determination by the court by withholding funds from the state of north carolina simply because it doesn't like what north carolina did. so this is a good amendment. i compliment the gentleman for bringing it forward. we've got numerous provisions in this bill to stop the administration and their efforts to impose policies without
regard to current law or the support of congress. i compliment the gentleman and yield back my time to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. pittenger: thank you. i submit this good amendment. i do believe that what we will do with this amendment is prevent the egregious abuse of power by the president and allow the adjudication of the process to be completed by the justice department. thank you, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman will avoid inappropriate reference to the president. ms. kaptur: may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman has two minutes remaining. ms. kaptur: thank you very much. i hate to disagree with the chairman of the subcommittee but let me say that the words of the administration -- of the amendment actually read none of the funds made available by this act may be used to revoke funding priestly awarded. none of the funds that means
there can be no oversight, no -- if criminal activity is occurring, none of the funds may be used to revoke funding previously awarded. what kind of amendment is to this -- is this? this is a very irresponsible amendment. it shouldn't be on this bill. i welcome the gentleman if he wants to work, if he's got system problem down there he wants to soft, we're happy to work with you on that. but i think to tie the hands of our government in making sure that every taxpayer dollar is properly managed and has oversight is really wrongheaded. again, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the pittenger amendment. i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote on that, please. the chair: pursuant to legal
cause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: i have an amendment -- the chair: will the gentleman specify the amendment. mr. garamendi: 113. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california, at the end of the bilk before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the bureau of
reclamation to issue a permit for california water fix or with respect to california water fix to provide for compliance under section 102 of the national environmental policy act of 19694 42 u.s.c. 4332 or section 7 of the endangered species act of 1973, 16 u.s.c. 1536. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 743, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield to myself such time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: about an hour ago this house of representatives kicked off a new quarter in the ngoing california water war. this house passed a piece of legislation that will ultimately
gut the endangered species act, clean water act, the biological opinions protecting salmon and smelt, the health of the largest estuary on the west coast of the western hemisphere, san francisco bay, salmon up and down the pacific coast. this amendment is designed to to the ultimate threat sacramento, san waugh queen delta. the ultimate threat are the twin tunnels being proposed by the brown administration, tunnels sized at 15,000 cubic feet per second capacity. tunnels that have the capability to take half, take all of the water out of the sacramento
river six months of the year, the sacramento river flows somewhere between 12,000 and 18,000 cubic feet per second. these tunnels if ever built will be capable of literally sucking the sacramento river try and destroying the largest estuary on the west coast. -- west coast of the western hemisphere this bill is designed to protect the delta. by denying the state of california the opportunity to use the federal government to build such a destructive system. we don't need that system. there are solutions to the delta problem. there are solutions that are capable of addressing the water issues of california. they've been proposed for many, many years. but this particular proposal, it's been oh -- it's been on the books for now nearly half a decade is the ultimate vampire ditch that will suck the
sacramento river and destroy the largest estuary on the west coast of the western hemisphere. it's not needed. it is at the minimum a $15 billion boondoggle that will not create one gallon of new water. it will only destroy. it will be the ultimate death because someday what was proved here in the house of representatives not more than an hour ago, someday the votes will be there, both in the house of representatives and in the senate and a bill will be sent to the president that will not be able to be vetoed. and we will see the death of the largest estuary, most important estuary on the west coast of the western hemisphere, from alaska to chile.
there is no other place like this. the solutions are known. they've been proposed. they've been out there. build the infrastructure. i've introduced a bill that would provide the federal government to work with the state ghovet in proposition 1 at the state level. to bring into harmony reservoirs, underground aquifers, conservation, recycling, desalinization, community water supplies. it's in the legislation. it's available to us today. all of that without destroying the delta. and also operating the delta in such a manner that we let science determine what to do. not legislation. not legislation here, not the desire of the governor of california but rather science. where are the fish? are they going to be harmed? ramp the pumps down. if they're not going to be harmed, turn the pumps on. very simple. but the legislation that passed the house today doesn't do that
it gives some bypassing words to the endangered species act, to the biological opinions. but in reality what it does is ays, turn the damnn pumps on anyway, let them rip, let them flood the delta. this bill speaks to the second threat to the delta, not the legislation passed today but the issue before the california voters in november, the issue that's before the california legislature and others today that issue is, should the tunnels be built? the tunnels must never be built. they must never be built because they are the ultimate exiss ten rble threat to the delta. their size, 15,000 cubic feet per second, perfectly capable of taking all of the water out of the sacramento river. half of the year. don't ever build something that's so destructive. the chair: the gentleman's time
has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so i really wish on this floor that there was a requirement that we had to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth this legislation -- this mendment here is -- this amendment here -- order. the chair: the house will be in order. >> mr. chairman, the amendment that's being offered here, there's a huge exaggeration that's going on right now. there were periods this past year alone just in the last few months that there were 150,000 kuehnic feet per second flowing but that delta. mr. valadao: these tunnels i do not believe are the ultimate solution for the delta and the valley, but i do not believe taking options off the table,
including an option that the governor does support, and i do believe to solve the problem we have to solve the problems of the delta. i look for every opportunity to have honest conversations, those who were there walked away and told the press it never happened. now they want to have those honest conversations again. as long as the language is there, we have the opportunity to have that dialogue and have the option on the table that the governor supports. anybody that support this is amendment is closing more opportunities for us to have that open dialogue so i rise in opposition to this and i'd like to yield my time -- i yield my time to the chairman here, mr. calvert. mr. calvert: thank you, my friend. here we go. this last winter, the gentleman pointed out, upwards to 200,000 cubic feet per second were moving through the delta. days like that we were pumping
2,300 cubic feet per second at the pumps. now the governor believes and many believe that the solution, because they were afraid it was going to reverse flow, the delta, when 00,000 acre-feet -- cubic feet per second were moving through the delta, is to build these tunnels. if these tunnels are built, we're saying we're going to suck dry the sacramento river. come on. that couldn't happen. we can't even putch up to the biological opinion. we can't -- we're not talking about eviscerating the endangered species act. we're talking about pumping water up to the biological opinion at 5,000 cube exfeet per second. we know those pumps are capable of pumping up to 11,000 feet per second. it couldn't even pump 15,000 acre-feet -- cubic feet per second, because they can only go up to 11,000 cubic feet. saying this is a solution that's on the table, it's thought out,
it's cost a lot of money. i know there are some questions that have to be answered but the solution, any solution that the gentleman keeps bringing up isn't a solution and nobody can agree to. so we're doing the best we can in the majority to make sure that we have water for the people in the central valley and by the way, for southern california, which is -- our economy is suffering because of this. certainly central valley's economy is suffering, to come up with solutions that can work. so that, mr. chairman, i appreciate the time and i yield back. the chair: how much time do i have remaining -- mr. valadao: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has a minute and a half. mr. valadao: i have to rise in opposition to this. i think we have to have an open dialogue on water legislation going forward. it needs to be transparent and opener world to see. we've tried working quietly with
some folks and that didn't produce anything. this is the next best option. having the option to have an open dialogue with all the options on the table. we have the option being performed today where my district is suffer, unemployment is through the roof and people are truly suffering and that needs to be fixed. we're asking for a simple solution to this legislation has been introduced, it's been part of a couple of pieces of legislation now. i think it's a reasonable request and i strongly recommend a no on this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. go sar: i have an amendment at the table, gosar 218. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona, at the end of the bill, before the short
sitele, insert the follow, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to prepare, propose or promulgate any guidance that references or relies on the analysis coen tained in one secny -- technical support document -- mr. gosar: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? without objection, ordered. pursuant to house resolution 743, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer a commonsense amendment that will protect american jobs and our economy, by prohibiting fundses from being used and to implement the obama administration's flawed social cost of carbon valuation. this job-killing and unlawful
guidance sneakly attempts to pave the way for cap and trade-like mandates. congress and the american people have repeatedly rejected cap and trade proposals. knowing that he can't lawfully enact a carbon tax plan, president obama's attempting to circumvent congress by playing loose and fast with the clean air act and unilaterally implementing this unlawful new requirement under the guise of guidance. the committee was wise to raise concern about the administration's abuse of the social cost of carbon valuation in the report. my amendment explicitly prohibits funds for being used to implement this deeply flawed guidance in the bill text. the house voted in favor of similar measures to reject the social cost of carbon four times last congress and multiple times over the past couple of years. a self-scribed life-long environmentalists and lawyer testified at the may, 2015, house natural resources committee hearing on the revised guidance and the flaws related to the social cost of carbon model stating that the social cost of carbon estimates
suffer from a number of significant flaws that should exclude them from the nepa process. among these flaws are, number one, the projected cost of carbon emissions can be manipulated by changing key parameters such as time frames, discount rates and other values that have no relation to a given project undergoing review. two, o.m.b. and other federal agencies develop the draft estimates without any known peer review or opportunity for public comment during the developal -- developmental process. hree, o.m.b.'s estimates global rather than domestic costs and benefits. four, there's still considerably uncertainty in many of the assumptions and data elements used to create the estimates. such as the damage functions anded model time horizons. the testimony was spot-on. congress, not washington bureaucrats at the behest of the president, should dictate our country's climate change policy. the sweeping changes that the white house is utilizing do not go through the normal regulatory process and there
was no public comment. unfortunately this administration just doesn't get it and continues to try to circumvent congress to impose an extremist environmental agenda that is not based on the best available science. worse yet, the model utilized to predict the social cost of carbon can be easily manipulated to arrive at a desired outcome. for instance,ed administration recently attempted to justify the e.p.a.'s methane rule using the social cost of carbon. using this flawed metric, they claimed that the e.p.a.'s methane rule would yield climate benefits of 690 million in 2025. and that those benefits will outweigh the 530 million that the rule will cost businesses and job creators that year alone. clearly the social cost of carbon is the administration's latest unconstitutional tool to deceive the american people and to enact job-killing regulations. the house voted in favor of several -- similar measures to reject the social cost of carbon four times last congress and multiple times over the last couple of years. this amendment is supported by the americans for limited government, americans for tax
reform, arch cole, the council for citizens against government waste, freedom works, the national taxpayers union, the taxpayers protection alliance, and the county cattle growers association. i ask that you all join me once in again in rejecting this -- once again in rejecting this flawed proposal. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? can't cament mr. chairman, i rise -- ms. kaptur: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: mr. chairman and members, this amendment tells the department of energy to ignore the latest climate change science. even worse, the amendment denies that carbon pollution is
harmful. according to this amendment, the cost of carbon pollution is zero. that's science denial at its worst and frankly it's just simply wrong. tell homeowners in arizona or those who live up in canada, where the wildfires have just raged, and seen their homes ravaged by drought-stoked while fires, that there are no costs from climate change. if you're a gardner like i am, even the backs of seed packets have changed because what used to be a tennessee tomato, now we grow it in ohio. the climate zones are moving north. the getting warmer. tell to the firefighters who have to put everything else on the line to fight those fires that rage in california and points west or north, tell that to the children and the elledelled -- and the elderly that will be plagued by heat stress and vulnerable to increased disease. tell that to the people
evacuated from the isle charles in louisiana who will lose homes as their island vanishes under the rising sea. or how about houston, texas, where the -- with the flash flooding, that's one of the most recent. these people are looking to us to protect america and to protect them. and they are looking to the republicans to finally be reasonable. the truth is that no one will escape the affects of unmitigated climate change. it will have an impact on all of us and frankly it is having an impact on all of us. this amendment waves a magic wand and decrees that climate change imposes no cost at all. house republicans can vote for this amendment, they can try to block the department from recognizing the damage caused by climate change and the potential damage, but they cannot overturn the laws of nature. they are powerful. we should be heeding the warnings of the climate scientists, not denying
reality. thank god we have them. we don't have to operate in ignorance. recently our nation's leading climate scientists released the national climate assessment, which continues to show evidence confirming the ongoing impacts of climate change. leading scientists around the world, not just here, agree the evidence is unambiguous. this amendment tells the department to ignore some of the wisest people in the world. the latest science shows that climate change is expected to exacerbate heat waves, those have been felt around the the y, droughts, look at lake in las vegas. look at the rings going down. look at millions and millions of acres now enduring wildfires . look at the added floods, water and vector-borne diseases which will be greater risks to human health and lives around the
world. the security of our food supply will diminish. resulting in reductions in production and increases in prices. according to leading climate science body, the ipcc, increasing global temperatures and drastic changes in water availability, which we just heard about on this floor in california, for heaven's sake, combined with an increase in food demand poses large risks to food security globally and regionally. when i was born there were 146 million people in this country. by 2050 we will have 500 million. it takes moran mals, it takes more -- more animals, it takes more machines, it takes more energy to feed that population tnd it takes much more to feed -- population, and it takes much more to feed the global population. human beings and our way of life do have an impact on what happens on this very, very suspended planet in the milky way galaxy. this amendment tells the department to ignore these and many other impacts and frankly i view that as irresponsible. federal agencies have a responsibility to calculate the
cost of climate change and take them into account. it's plain common sense. and it's a life and death matter. and that's exactly what the obama administration is doing. an interagency task force worked over the course of several years to estimate the costs of the harm from carbon pollution. the cost calculation was first issued in 2010 and updated in 2014 and continues to be refined by incorporating new scientific and technical information and soliciting input from leading experts. this was a very constructive calculation and a conservative one at that, with the full cost of climate change almost certainly being higher. but it is better than the previous estimate and much, much better than assuming the costs are nothing. unfortunately that's what this amendment would require the government to assume. zero harm. zero costs. zero danger from carbon pollution and climate change. the truth is, unchecked climate change would have a catastrophic economic and human
impact here and across the world. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: how much time do i have? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. speaker. the earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time. and that's something i think we can all agree. m.i.t. researchers have looked at a massive extinction some 252 million years ago as a result of a massive buildup of carbon dioxide. funny, man wasn't around. the nonpartisan congressional research service estimates that the administration squandered $77 billion, with a b, between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2013. trying to study all this. if the president, the emperor himself, would like to bypass congress, that's fine. but congress has a fiduciary and responsibility legislatively to pass something that the agency should enforce.
and we talk about wildfires. well, you know, there we go again. it's been mismanagement of our forests that have created these catastrophic wildfires. take it from somebody in arizona who should know. so i ask all my colleagues to vote for this amendment and with that i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: on that i would like to ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: i have two mendments at the desk, 115 and 116. with regard to 115, i would seek unanimous consent to not take up this amendment, this was debated last night, debated
thoroughly, and would do us little good today to debate it once again. although i do believe it to be a very serious problem that deserves the attention of the committee and all the members. that deals with the mox facility. the chair: the clerk will report amendment 116. the clerk will designate amendment number 29. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. garamendi of california. mr. garamendi: i believe this is known as amendment 116, if that's correct. very good. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 743, the gentleman from california and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. i think most of us should be aware that we are well into the first quarter of a new nuclear arms race, this time with not only russia, but with china. and perhaps with some others out there that would like to build nuclear weapons and
armaments. this amendment goes directly to one of the critical parts of that arms race, which is the development of what is essentially a new nuclear bomb. some would like to say it is simply a refurbishment of an older weapon and i guess you can get away with that if you stretch the words a bit. but this is the w-80-4 nuclear bomb. it is the warhead that will go on the new cruise missile, sometimes called the lsro. it's a very expensive proposition, this particular budget calls for $240 million to be spent this year on the early stages of the refurbishment, we're probably looking at twice that level of funding over the next decade to develop a few hundred of these weapons or these bombs. we need to wake up. we need to be paying attention
to this trillion-dollar enterprise. over the next 25 years we will be spending $1 trillion on a new nuclear arms race. to what effect? some would say that what we have is old and we ought to have something that's new. well, what is old actually continues to work for many, many years. so the not just the nuclear bombs that will be refurbished or rebuilt or life-extended or whatever words you want to use, but they're new and they're extraordinarily expensive and obviously extraordinarily dangerous. and we're going to develop an entire new array of delivery systems, discussed on the house floor not so long ago, and debate was the question of whether we ought to have new intercontinental ballistic missiles in the silos in the midwest, upper midwest. an interesting debate. and the debate was that -- the
result of the debate was, well, we ought to build new icbm's for those sil ombing s, without paying -- silos, without paying too much attention to the cost, and we ought to have a whole new array of nuclear-armed submarines and a new stealth bomber and a new cruise missile and so what are we talking about here? $1 trillion. at the same time we debate on the floor whether we have any money for zika. apparently we don't, though that is a real threat and it is real today. and we talk about community water systems and we don't have money for those either. i'll tell you where the money is. it's in this nuclear arms race. it's not about disarmament. nobody is suggesting that. it's about, are we going to spend all this money and perpetuate what is already under way without giving taught -- thought to the impact it's going to have on the things we know we must do, educate our children,
provide infrastructure for our community, our sanitation systems our transportation systems? or are we going to go about building new nuclear bombs? apparently that's what we're going to do because there's $240 million right here, money that we didn't have available for zika, money we don't have for the water systems of flint, michigan, or in our own state of california, but it's here. the w-80-4. keep that number in mind, ladies and gentlemen. you're going to see that coming back before you as we appropriate more and more dollars for not only this new nuclear bomb but for many others. so i draw your attention to this issue. i ask that we move about $100 million of this money out of this nuclear bomb that we really don't need for another decade. we don't need it tomorrow. we may never need it. but it won't be on any piece of equipment for at least a decade.
so why don't we spend this money on our communities. why don't we spend it on flint, michigan. why don't we spend it on the communities in the central valley of california that we've heard so much about. communities that don't have water systems. communities in the san joaquin valley that we heard so much about just a moment ago where the children have to take their water out of a horse water trough. not out of a tap. we're going to spend our money building a new nuclear bomb. i think that's wrong. i think it's not necessary. in fact, i know it's not necessary. that's what we're going to do. so i ask you to make a choice. to make a choice to spend our money on what we need today. clean water systems. transportation, education. not on a new nuclear bomb.
the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> claim time in hop sigs. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i respect the gentleman's comments and i respect the gentleman he mentioned many functions that are necessary for the government that we should be doing. the one he didn't mention was defending the security of the united states. it's one of the fundamental purposes of the federal government. and what this amendment would do is take money out of the program to continue the life extension program of the w-80 warhead, the only cruise missile in the u.s. nuclear arsenal. the gentleman says we don't need it now so let's spend the money somewhere else and if we need it next year, i guess we could just spend the money next year. but you can't develop this, you don't do these life ex-tax programs in just a year. these are long-term investments. the life extension will support
the air force's plan to develop the long range cruise missile. if the gentleman believes the lrso is not necessary, i would point him at the air force whose leadership testified on numerous occasions before congress that we need to sustain our nuclear capabilities and need to make these investment. we must do the work that's needed to extend the life of this warhead as long as there's a clear defense requirement for maintain agnew clear cruise missile capability. while the rlso is still at an early stage of development, these war heads are very complex and there's a considerable amount of work to accomplish between now and then. performing development work earlier in the schedule will allow the nnsa to limit technical risks and limit cost growth by evaluating at an early stage. the gentleman's amendment will not stop the program but would add additional risk into the chedule and raise the cost for
modernizing the warhead down the line. i should point out that the gentleman's amendment also proposes to move the funding to nondefense without any-for-walls negotiated in priest deals. i urge members to vote against this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by this gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have an amendment t the desk, gosar 221. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act
may be used by the department of energy's climate model development and validation program. the chair: her sunt to house resolution 743, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona for five minutes. mr. gosar: i rise to offer an amendment to save taxpayers money, help the department of energy avoid duplicative programs an ensure the agency's limited resources are focused on programs related to its mission to ensure energy security for the united states. this simple amendment would prohibit the use of funds for the climate model development and validation program within the department of energy. this exact same amendment passed this body in fiscal year 2015 and 2016. this year, this amendment is even more important because despite this amendment getting approval from this body multimillion years in -- multiple years in a row and being denied funding multiple years in a row, the president was given access to about half of what he requested previously to create this new duplicitous
and wasteful program. with the nation more than $92 million in debt the question must be asked why must money be given to the president for new computer generated climate models. the administration is already using models to deceive the american people. they tried to justify the methane rule using the model. they claimed the methane rule would yield climate benefits of 690 million in 2025 and that would outweigh the $50 million that it would cost businesses -- the $530 million that it would cost businesses that year alobe. this would be added to the list of duplicative global warming modeling programs being hijacked by the e.p.a. to force new regulations like the new clean power plan. the nonpartisan congressional resource service estimate this
is administration has squanered $70 billion from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2013 studying and trying to develop global climate change regulations. this amendment is about fiscal responsibility and priorities. while research and model og they have earth's climate including how and why earth's climate is changing can be of value, it's not central to the department's in addition and is being done by academic, business and nonprofit organizations around the world. this particular issue is being addressed very well by the academic and nonprofit sector with much greater efficiency and speed than the government bureaucracy can offer. further, the research and models utilized by our universities are not being manipulated to impose a partisan agenda. regardless of our opinion on climate change, i feel strongly that the house of representatives must continue its firm position that we should not be waste freshes taxpayer resources on programs that are duplicitous in nature and funded
by others. the waste in the climate model evaluation program has been shown by several watchdog groups. the house of representatives has wisely declined to fund this program in fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2016. considering the extensive work that's being done to research, model and forecast climate trends, the private sector and internationally, funding for this specific piece of president obama's climate agenda is not only redundant but ineffective. it's also irresponsible. i thank the chairman and ranking members for the committee on their work and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i rise to seek time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. kaptur: yes. you know, years ago, there were
people that served in this body that denied that america should pass a clean water act. and today in many places in our country when we turn on the tap we trust what we drink. we had to change our way of life, yeah, we had to make investments, but we produced a stronger country. and there were those who fought against the clean air act. you can go back and read the record. and there are always those folks who have difficulty embracing the future. this amendment blocks funding for the department of energy's climate model development and validation program and this is climate science denial at its worst. used to be people said, well, it's ok that industry dumps in the water, washes everything out somewhere. when the bald eagle became an endangered species it became clear that all of that pollution was causing long-term damage. now the world's top scientists are telling us that we have a rapidly closing window to reduce
our carbon pollution before the catastrophic impacts of climate change that cannot be avoided. so far, the world has already warmed by .9 degrees celsius and we are already seing the effects of climate change. most scientists agree that two degrees celsius is the maximum amount we can warm without really dangerous tipping point, though many scientists now believe that even two degrees is far too much given the effects we are already experiencing all around the world. but absent dramatic action, we're on track to warm four to six degrees celsius by mid century, that's more than 10 degrees fahrenheit. even with the pledges to reduce carbon emissions as part of c.o.p. 21 we are still in danger of experiencing the drastic consequences of climate change, including increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and drought. the international energy agency concluded that increased efforts are still need in addition to
existing pledges to stay within the two degree limit and we're already seing the devastation from climate change including recently the evacuation of climate refugees from the aisle of john charles near new orleans. so you sort of think to the world you knew versus think world of the future and you have to embrace the future and you have to help those who are going to follow us. there are multiple lines of evidence including direct measurements that life is changing. the projections that these models anticipate are critical as they provide the guide posts to understand how quickly and how steeply the world needs to cut carbon pollution in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. and the goal of the department of energy's climate model development and validation program is to further improve the reliable of climate models and equip policymakers and citizens with tools to predict current and future events that result from climate change such as sea level rise, extreme weather events, and drought. this amendment scrap this is
program. it says no to enhancing the reliability of our climate models. who wouldn't want that. it says no investing in the security of the people of this nation. and the nation's assets itself. it says no to improving our understanding of how the climate is changing and it says no to informing policymakers about the consequences of unmitigated climate change. that's absolutely irresponsible and an outcome this nation cannot afford. it's interesting, there's an author, robert lavelle, who has written a book, "last child in the woods," what it talks act is how america has become to technologically sophisticated that we no longer respend to nature. especially our children who spend eight hours in front of a blue screen. but perhaps it's that lack of connection to nature that we do not have a population, colluding some in this chamber who do not see what nature is doing in her
powerful force. i would urge members to read that book and pay attention to what the temperature is of the lake near you, the ocean near you, pay attention to what's happening in our coastal communities and in agriculture. and our ability to produce food for the future. because of changes in weather. what's happening with rainfall. there's a lot going on. what happens to clouds in your region of the country. how close do they come to the earth. when they rain falls how severe are the welcome events. these events are happening around our country and around our world and i would have to rise in opposition obviously to this amendment and urge a no vote on this amendment because i don't think it leads us into the future. i think it takes us back into the past to a world that does not exist anymore. i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. gosar: this amendment not about making a statement about climate change or the validity
of cry mat science. it's about fiscal responsibility and efficiency. more than 50 universities and academic institutions around the globe are engaged in climate modeling. this is being addressed by the academic and nonprofit sector with much greater efficiency and speed than government bureaucracy can offer. v.a., emind you of the the government doesn't do anything very well at all. we need to start looking at this. when we talk about responsibility, $19 trillion in debt. there's some apples we need to start coming to look at. when we start looking at the stewings that are doing this, hardly second tier institutions, the massachusetts institute of technology. m.i.t. for short. the university of california berkley. there's some really good people right out there doing this work on our behalf. so when we start looking at efficacies and effectiveness, we need to look no further than the private sector and the
universities that are already done doing this. this is something we don't need to be due public taos in and be partisan in -- -- duplicative in and be partisan in our outcomes. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from aye. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. green: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk will designate amendment number 24. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. al green of texas. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order is eserved.
mr. green: am i recognized, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, as a preamble to my amendment, please allow me to thank the chairman, mr. simpson, for his courtesies. i'd also like to thank the ranking member, ms. kaptur, for her courtesies. mr. chairman, if you live in houston, texas, you monitor the weather. you monitor the weather, mr. chairman, because over the last year, houston, texas, has been declared a disaster area not once, but twice. if you live in houston, texas, you monitor the weather because
we are to year spend billions in recovery damages. if you live in houston, texas, you monitor the weather because, in the last year we flooding. 7 lives to houston has a problem. but there is a solution. this amendment, which is based upon h.r. 5025, an emergency supplemental bill, would accord $311 million that will eventually be spent -- this is not money that will not be spent in houston, texas, money that will be spent on projects that are already authorized. the projects are authorized, the money's going to be spent, however we can take a piecemeal approach and do some now, some
later and spend billions more in recovery efforts, which is what we are doing. we're spending billions after floods when we could spend illions before and save money, save lives and give houston, texas, the citizens therein, ome degree of comfort. mr. chairman, i believe that my friends in this house have a great deal of sympathy and a good deal of empathy for houston, texas, as is evidenced by the fact that more than 70 members have signed onto the bill, h.r. 5025, and we have bipartisan support. we have republicans at the committee level who are doing what they can within the committee, and we also have democrats who are working to try to help houston, texas. so i am honored tonight to stand in the well of the house to make this request, that
houston, texas, be made a priority and that the corps of engineers, when they do assess the needs of the nation, that houston be given some degree of preference because money is being spent that need not be spent. but more importantly, mr. chairman, and ranking member, because lives are being lost. houston, texas, has what are captioned as flash floods. you can find yourself in a circumstance from which you cannot extricate yourself and you may lose your life. when we have one of these adverse weather conditions. and they happen more often than expected some years ago. we don't have or it can be debate as to whether we're having 100-year floods or 500-year floods. that's debatable. but what is not debatable is the fact that we're having
billion-dollar floods. billion-dollar floods in houston, texas. a major american city declared a disaster area not once, but twice in the last one year. if i'm permitted to i shall reserve some time for closing comments. the chair: the gentleman may reserve 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 on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law. the amendment includes an emergency designation and as such constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21, and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heards on the point of order? mr. green: i would like to be heard, if i may. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: thank you, mr.
chairman. mr. chairman, simpson, would you allow me to give my closing comments before we receive the ruling from the chair which will be just a few seconds more, i believe. how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. green: would you allow such? ms. kaptur: mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. mr. chairman. mr. green: i was going to say -- mr. simpson: i was going to say, if i could, in being heard on the amendment -- the chair: the gentlewoman from ohio -- mr. simpson: the gentleman could speak for the one minute. ms. kaptur: i was going to ask -- the chair: does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. green: well, yes, on the point of order, if so -- in so doing i may speak to the flooding in houston, texas. i want to be appropriate as i do this. and i will yield to the wisdom of the chair. the chair: the chair will rule. the chair finds that this amendment includes an emergency designation, 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. so what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: yes, i would yield my time to the fine gentleman from houston, texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: thank you so much. please allow me to continue with just a brief commentary. i have a colleague who is not here, the honorable gene green. he's asked that his statement with reference to this amendment be placed in the record and i ask unanimous consent to do, so mr. chairman. -- to do so, mr. chairman. the chair: without objection. mr. green: thank you. i would also add this, a good deal of my comments have emanated from, as i indicated, h.r. 5025. this bill has bipartisan support and i see in the chamber my good friend and colleague, the honorable ted poe, who is one of the co-sponsors of the legislation,
some of my other colleagues who are co-sponsoring from texas would include the honorable john culberson, would also clude the honorable member webber, randy webber. a good number -- weber, randy weber, a good number. sheila jackson lee, the honorable gene green that i mentioned. there are others as well. this is bipartisan. this is a recognition that we re going to have problems that we can solve that will create greater circumstances than we should have to endure. there is little reason for us to be back here a year or so from now indicating that we've had another flood, a billion-dollar flood, maybe less, maybe more, and that we may have lost lives in that future event.
my hope is that while this amendment is not in order, and i accept the ruling of the chair, my hope is that we will find a means by which we will do sooner that which we will do later, spend the $311 million, after we have had additional billion-dollar floods. this amendment makes good sense, it is a commonsense solution, and i do thank the chair and the that -- -- and i thank the ranking member for her very kind words and her opportunity that she has accorded me -- the opportunity she's accorded me and i thank you, mr. simpson, for being so general jouse as well -- generous as well. mr. simpson: i appreciate the gentleman's passion with this and his obvious concern and interest and i will tell that you there is a great deal of support for what the gentleman is proposing. congressman poe and congressman culberson, as wling as members on your side of the -- as well as members on your side of the aisle have talked to us
repeatedly about the issues you address here. while this amendment is out of order, i will promise to the gentleman that we will work with you to try to address this problem of one of america's great cities. mr. green: i thank you and as you know i believe your word is as good as gold. thank you. and i thank the ranking member. the chair: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. yoho of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of energy to employ in excess of 95% of the department's total number of employees as of the date of the enactment of this act. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 743, the gentleman from florida and a member owe potion -- opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker.
mr. speaker, my amendment is simply a commonsense measure to help reduce the size of out-of-control federal departments that continue to grow annually unchecked, increasing both scope, size and increasing our spending, both discretionary and mandatory. our nation is over $19 trillion in debt. let me repeat that. $19 trillion in debt. yet this chamber, us, we the people in government, members of the people's house in charge of the taxpayers' purse string, must start acting -- taking action to actively reduce our expenditures. i appreciate the chairman and ranking members for their hard work on this bill, but i'm concerned that the cost it will place on the american people is too great. we can do better and we must do better. this amendment is offered as a modest solution and establishes a 5% across-the-board cut to
the department of energy's total employees. in the private sector, when scrambling to cover your costs, you have to make decisions, including sometimes the elimination of positions that are not essential to the overall purpose and mission of the organization, or you simply can't afford it. not only is reducing the current size of the department's full-time staff essential, but i believe it's also -- it also should be accompanied by a one-year hiring freeze. in 2013 when the government was shut down, i want to remind people, the government shut down over money and it wasn't from an excess, it was from a lack of it, the department of energy was faced with this very dilemma and made the decision to furlough 69% of its work force. these workers were deemed nonessential. i understand the circumstances were extraordinary, but the department was still able to target areas within that they were mandated to do and they essentially to
maintaining in necessary functions. my amendment is only requiring the department to reduce its full-time employees by 5%, which in the scheme of things is nominal, but essential in getting our country back on track fiscally and the right thing to do. for our nation to remain prosperous and to keep the american dream alive for generations to come, we must make these hard decisions now. we must scale back federal spending. one cannot be personally -- one cannot have personal freedom without financial freedom. that same philosophy also applies to nations. if they wish to pass on to their future generations the blessings of our past and our current posterity, liberties and freedoms. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. 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 for five minutes.
mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i rise to oppose this amendment. i understand the desire for an efficient and effective federal government with an . propriately sized work force in fact, as the gentleman has specific programs or offices that he believes are currently overstaffed, i'd be happy to work with him to see if that is the case and to figure out the best way to address any problems we may find. but this amendment doesn't look at specific details and make targeted reductions. it rerequires the department of energy to furlough 5% of its employees on october 1. it doesn't allow the department time to review whether it might need more people to carry out its national security responsibilities, for instance, or fewer people to carry out other programs who work as ramping down or being reduced by this bill. that's not good government, that's putting almost 800 people across the country out of work for no good reason. the underlying bill on the other hand includes reasonable and targeted reductions to funding levels for the department'sed a misk accounts. thear