Skip to main content

tv   US House of Representatives Special Orders  CSPAN  May 25, 2016 7:00pm-9:01pm EDT

7:00 pm
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. the departmental administration
7:01 pm
account was $36 million below the president's budget request in the bill brought to the floor and amendments already passed by the house have resulted in further cuts to the departmental administration. . federal salaries for the nuclear security administration are $30 million below this president's request. the funding levels in this bill send a clear message about growth in the federal work force requiring an automatic 5% cut across the board is a step too far and as i said it is not good government. for these reasons, i oppose these amendments, urge my colleagues to vote against it. i would note that when the gentleman says during the government shutdown they furloughed 60% of the work force, that was 16 days. these employees were labeled as nonessential. same thing happened in congress. i would suspect in your congress, at least i know in my office, we had to declare which employees were nonessential. those employees now work for me
7:02 pm
again and are rehired. i suspect they are in your office too. just because they were furloughed in a 16-day government shutdown doesn't mean they are essentially nonessential. so i don't think this is a well thought out amendment and would oppose it and urge my colleagues to oppose it. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. simpson: i'm happy to yield to the gentlelady. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i rise to join the chairman in opposing this amendment. it truly is a blunt cut, no analysis, no consulting a, no consideration of impact. just a blunt cut. it would mean about 700 people who would be fired at headquarters, at field offices, even at our power marketing administration across the west. layoffs of this magnitude would profoundly impede the department of energy's ability to oversee its nuclear security responsibilities, science and energy and environmental cleanup mandates.
7:03 pm
so i strenuously oppose this amendment and would urge the gentleman to bring back a more thoughtful amendment at some point if he wishes but i don't support the blunt cut and yield back to the gentleman, the chame of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida. >> i appreciate the chairman and ranking member's opposition but i remind them this is a necessary step in reducing the size of the government. we're approaching $20 trillion. when we talked about nonessential employees i didn't have in any -- any in my office, everybody in my office is essential so we didn't lay anybody off. the gentleman laughs, but that's fine. the executive departments and agencies have gradually taken personification of the 1984 horror flick "the blob." departments like d.o.e. are consuming everything in their path and increasing their own presence in the private sector. at what point do we say, enough
7:04 pm
is enough. at what point do we say, we're going to get our spending under control. this is a small, 5% incremental change to department of energy. it's not specific because it gives the flexibility to the department to come up with the changes that they want to, keeping in mind that our federal government's number one task is national security. so the people that are tasked to run the department of energy can make the commonsense and needed reforms that they need. again in the private sector, you see the major companies changing and laying off people as they need to. government continues to grow and it adds not just discretionary spending but also to the mandatory spending that go into the social security and retirement. we have a responsibility to the american people and the future generations to fix the problems at hand instead of giving rhetoric and saying, well, it's not specific enough. we need to stand up and say, the time is now. if we start now with small, incremental changes, we can
7:05 pm
change the direction of our nation's debt while we still have the option because the day will come when we don't have that option with our controlled, with our out of control spending. i'm asking my colleagues, if you want to change the debt structure in this country and get a handle on it, it's time we start now and stop talking about it and i urge people to support this and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes visit. he amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment, number 7 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. -- clerk: the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.
7:06 pm
the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title insert the follow, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of energy for the experimental program to stimulate competitive research. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 743, the gentleman from illinois and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster. mr. foster: thank you. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. foster: i rise today to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and my colleague, congressman scot fware rhett, my republican co-chair of the payer states caucus a group of members opposed to the massive transfer of wealth between one set of states to another. this amendment is a very simple one that would prohibit any of the funds in this bill from being used in the experimental program to stimulate competitive esearch otherwise known as
7:07 pm
epscor. it was started in 1978 as a program in hopes of strengthening research infrastructure in areas of the couldn'tly that receive less than their fair share, however that's defined. as a scientist and an american i think it is a fine goal but the implementation of this program and the norm las used to earmark grants to a specific set of states is absurd. the ability to participate in epscor opportunities to based solely on whether or not a state of eceived less than .75% the n.s.f. research funding in the previous three years. let me reiterate that. the department of energy epscor eligible is determined by how much n.s.f. funding a given state has received in the previous three years. there's no rational basis for earmarking a grant program in one area of spending based on the spending in another
7:08 pm
unrelated program. moreover, because epscor considers the funding on a per state basis rather than a per capita bea sis, then it has devolved into just another one of the many programs that steers money into states that already get far manufacturer than their air share of federal spending. epscor is emblematic of a larger problem we have in this country. every year, hundreds of billions of dollars are transferred out of states that pay far more in federal taxes than they receive back in federal spending. the payer states. and into states that receive a lot more federal spending than they pay back in tax, etaker states. in the case of illinois our economy loses $40 billion a year because we pay far more in federal taxes than federal -- than we receive back in federal spending my colleague from new jersey, his state on a per capita basis, has it even worse. this alone is responsible for
7:09 pm
the fiscal stress in both of our states. this is an enormous and unjustifiable redistribution of wealth between the states. this amendment takes a first small step to begin rolling back these taker state preferences by eliminating one of the many, but one of the most unjustifiable of them, the epscor program. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from idaho, for what purpose does he seek recognition. i appreciate the gentleman's passion for the office of science, i'm a supporter of the office of science. the office of science directs important research funding to e national laboratories, the epscor program extends this further by extending research where there has historically
7:10 pm
been less funding. it's been laying the foundation in basic sciences across the nation. taking away this funding puts existing grants and partnerships in jeopardy at the many universitys that receive epscor grants. therefore i must oppose this amendment and urge other members to do the same and i would yield to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: i thank the chairman for yield, i rise in opposition to this amendment which would eliminate funding for the dp of energy epscor program. for more than 40 year, the department of energy has provided academic research funding to colleges around the nation that's been critical to ongoing research that's essential to maintaining our competitive edge and energy advancement. he d.o.e.'s program, epscor is a science-driven, merit based program whose mission is to help balance allocation of d.o.e. and other federal research and development funding to avoid undue concentration of money to only a few states.
7:11 pm
this successful program has had a profound impact on my home state of rhode island, allowing our academic institutions to increase research capacity, enrich the experience of their students and contribute to important advances in a variety of fields. currently 24 states, including rhode island, and three jurisdictions account for only 6% of all d.o.e. funding despite the fact that they account for 0% of think u.s. population. epscor helped stabilize this imbalance in funding and should couldn't to do so in the 2017 fiscal year and beyond. help ensure a-- to -- we should take advantage of the knowledge and experience of academic institutions from every state this amendment would be a step backwards in the united states' commitment to research and development. programs like this are necessary
7:12 pm
to creating jobs, maintaining our competitive edge. i urbling my colleagues to join me in strongly opposing this amendment and i thank the chairman for yielding. i yield back. mr. simpson: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. foster: could i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. foster: i would like to emphasize that this doesn't take away funding from the office of science, it eliminates a set-aside a poorly designed set-aside based on spending that's completely unrelated to the actual office of science. if the goal of this program were to equalize the funding in the -- of the office of science then it should be base theend actual expenditures of the office of science. so states that are underrepresented there would presumably be able to call the for these.
7:13 pm
it does not do that. ifs of designed to equalize spending between states that receive a lot more federal funding than those that don't, then you'd see a very different number of states. set of states on this. particularly the fact that it's not based on a per capita basis is the fundamental flaw in this thing. if you look at those state the single distinguishing characteristic, not that they're small or -- sorry, not that they're poor or rural or anything else, it's that they have small populations. which means that they are overrepresented in the senate. one of the main mechanisms for transferring wealth out of large states like new jersey, like illinois, like california, larbling number of other states, into smaller states are spending formulas that have frankly been cook up in the senate where there's a basic state, small states are overrepresented and the formulas steer large amounts of money into them. if this was based on a per
7:14 pm
capita basis it would at least be rational. if the office of science funding was based on actual expenditures at least in the department of energy, it would be rational. what we see are states receiving epscor funds that get far more than their share both in federal funding an of department of energy funding overall. a rational program would first off collect all funding, all research funding in all areas and base the set-asides on that and second do, it on a per capita basis. these are fundamental flaws and at this point it is preferable to just eliminate the entire program and start over if people think it's a useful thing. thank you and i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i appreciate the gentleman's arguments. it sounds like we're back at the constitutional convention. should we have a legislative branch of government be represented by the population or should it be represented by the states?
7:15 pm
i know, let's compromise. let's have two bodies. one that represents the states with an equal number from each state and one that reps the population. we'll call one the house of representatives and one the senate. that's how it works out. we are one nation. and we try make sure that funds go to all states. some of them have a disadvantage just by the sheer size and if you look at idaho, we're the 12th largest state and i suspect population wise we're down there substantially. montana is probably worse off than we are. so it's almost impossible for the universities and so forth to compete with some of the larger states. so we can argue about whether the formulas are correct or absolutely correct or should be modify or anything else like that i'm more than willing to do that but to eliminate the program i think is as me take. i would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment
7:16 pm
offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the chair: the amendment is not agreed to. mr. foster: request a recorded vote. e chair: proceedings will be postponed. for what purpose does gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: before the short title insert the following, none of the funds made available by this agget may be used in contravention of the illegal u.s.c.of 199 , 8 the chair: pursuant to house resolution 743, the gentlewoman rom tennessee and a member
7:17 pm
posed will each control 10 minutes. mrs. black: sanctuary cities put our laws. and kate steinle to see the danger to ignore the federal immigration policy. we cannot allow this to stand. i'm introducing this amendment to the appropriations bill that would ban funding to any state or city that refuses to comply with our immigration laws. i recognize and some of my colleagues say it is better suited on the hart and indeed, i join my colleagues, congressman gosar on a letter to the subcommittees asking similar language be attached to their bills as well. but the truth is amnesty for law
7:18 pm
breakers impact our jobs, our security and in the case of miss life.teinle an innocent this is due to a response and this can be. if cities choose to put their cities at risk in defiance of federal law, there is no reason to continue spending federal money on their energy and water projects. it is that simple. i urge my colleagues to take a vote and support this common sense amendment the chair: anyone wish to speak in opposition. the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i claim time in opposition. the black amendment would prohibit financial assistance to
7:19 pm
any state that is acting in contravention of the responsibility act. but this is an energy and water bill. this is nt a part of our bill. i rise in opposition to the mendment because it is frankly nongermane. the department of energy isn't involved or the army of corps engineers or the as that are under the jurisdiction of this bill have nothing to do. why are we debateing immigration policy on energy and water appropriation bill? doesn't make any sense. frankly, the amendment would prohibit funding for state and local funding against the sharing of information related to immigration status but state
7:20 pm
and federal law enforcement share information with i.c.e. that is used to determine immigration status and do it through the system that share these metrics. so even if this amendment were germane, i don't think the amendment is necessary or would do. even more to the point if the premise of the amendment if local law enforcement agencies aren't notifying i.c.e., then the amendment is misguided because the department of homeland security has established a priority enforcement program, designed to better work with state and local law enforcement to take aliens before they are released in our
7:21 pm
communities and prior to that program's establishment, 337 jurisdictions refused to honor some or all of i.c.e. detainers. 277 of those jurisdiction or 73% have signed up to participate in that program by responding to i.c.e. requests honoring requests or both. the department of homeland security is making good progress and in the program. and we should support them in those efforts and avoid muddling the issue and reject the amendment the department of homeland security is not a part of the appropriations energy and water subcommittee and it is doubtful this amendment would have any effect. even if it were germane to the bill and subject to a point ever order. this is in effect across the
7:22 pm
country, no one refuses to share information. it is difficult to see how this amendment would have any effect ont soffer if it was offered the bills. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i yield back. yieldsir: the gentlelady back. mrs. black: it is ironic that this amendment is not necessary and the department of justice and homeland security were all doing their job and applying the law to each one of these cities. i want to point to the fabt in february of this year our attorney loretta lynch testified and it was in that committee that she talked about cracking down on what is happening in these sanctuary cities.
7:23 pm
i want to read what was in the "washington times." the obama administration is preparing to crack down. attorney general lynch told congress on wednesday saying she would try to stop grant money from going to jurisdictions that thwart agencies seeking to deport illegal immigrants. and there was a follow-up that the justice department said if a city is refusing to cooperate, they could lose money and face criminal prosecution. and so we see that hopefully we will see the administration crack down on what is unlawful and that is for the cities to be operational. they shouldn't be receiving federal funds in each one of these appropriation bills and that's what this amendment does. and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back.
7:24 pm
the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i do have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate. mr. mcnerney: number 82. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcnorthern any of california, insert the following -- mr. mcnerney: i ask that it can be considered read mr. simpson: the gentleman from idaho.
7:25 pm
i would object to waiving the reading. the chair: the clerk will continue. the clerk: before the short title insert the following, no federal funds may be used for a project with respect to which an investigation was initiated by the inspector general of the department of interior during calendar years 2015, 2016 or 2017. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcnerney: california, like much of the west has been under a devastating drought. california's governor wants to move forward with something called water fix tunnel plan
7:26 pm
which will build two tunnels from one part of the state to the other. i agree with everybody that we need solutions to save the water needs. there needs to be certainty for the farmers about our water supply. we need to focus on conservation, recycling, storage and leak detection and fixing. the water fix tunnels does none of these things. california voters and the state legislature haven't agreed to fund this project which is xpected to exceed $25 billion. indecision, decision, the federal government is expected billion. the inspector general has opened an investigation into the
7:27 pm
possible illegal use of millions of dollars by the department of water resources in preparing documents. instead of funding important habitat improvements, the state administration may be using funds for the tunnel plan that may harm threaten species. they need water for the entire state, not one that is for the state and misappropriated funds. we have to use the funding for projects that make use for california and make california resilient. my amendment will ban the government from funding tunnels from taking our water while subject to federal investigation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the
7:28 pm
gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states an amendment to a general appropriation bill should not be in order. the amendment imposes additional duties and i ask for a.m. ruling from the chair the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds this imposes new duties on the federal officials offered by the bill with regard to investigations of the department of interior. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2, rule 21. the rule is sustained and the amendment is not in order. mr. mcnerney: i request unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: the amendment has
7:29 pm
been ruled on. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act shall be used in contravention of the religious freedom restoration two, executive a er or three, sections 702- of the civil rights act of 1964, 2-eastern 2 or of the emcans with disabilities act, 42 u.s.c. 12113 d with respect to any religious
7:30 pm
corporation, religious -- the chair: the clerk will suspend. the gentleman from alabama. >> i submitted three amendments annual i request one of the other amendments be brought up the chair: the gentleman will specify. . clip amendment offered by mr. byrne of alabama -- the clerk: amendment offered by mr. baron of alabama. allocating funds made available by this act for projects of the army corps of engineer the chief of engineers shall gai priority o the dog river, fowl river, projects.labatrie mr. simpson: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's
7:31 pm
amendment. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. mr. byrne: my amendment would allow for a number of projects in my home district of coastal alabama to must've forward. are ny areas the waterways the lifeblood of the in addition's economy. i appreciate the work the army corps of engineers does to keep our waterways maintained. i know it works hard to prioritize projects to keep our waterways and ports open for commerce. unfortunately, at times it seems like smaller projects get ignored or foggeten altogether. these projects are vital to many of our local communities and have a significant economic impact from commercial and recreational fishing as well as tourism in general. my amendment seeks to prioritize some projects in swevt alabama that are long overdue. these include a project to dredge fly creek where they need restoring after severe flooding
7:32 pm
in 2014. another project would allow for dog and fowl rivers to be dredged to help accommodate fishing. yet another project that needs attention is bayou coden, an important area for local shipbuilding. i must thank the army corps of new englander -- engineers for their attention to several projects. these are crit corral projects but more work remains. i understand that my amendment may not be allowed under house rules but i believe it is important to have this debate and remind the appropriations committee as well as the army corps of engineers about the importance of the smaller projects that really make a huge difference in communities across the united states. these tight budget times, i know it can be difficult to balance the need of major army corps projects with smaller projects like the one i've mentioned. but i hope the army corps will work with congress to seek a
7:33 pm
proper balance that ensures smaller waterways receive the maintenance and attention they deserve. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i continue to reserve my point of order. trying to figure out exactly how to do this while reserving my point of order. i guess claiming anymore in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i do understand the gentleman's concern. this is an issue we hear about from quite a few members. the administration's assistance on budgeting on tonnage alone with no other consideration is shortsighted. that's why this bill provides additional funding for small navigation projects and the are eport encourages the adnorgs correct its budget cry tieria. unfortunately, the gentleman's amendment would establish priority and that's not something i can support particularly in light of the house prohibition on congressional earmarks. i encourage my colleague to
7:34 pm
withdraw his amendment and continue to work with the to show the administration the importance of small navigation projects. i yield to the gentleman. mr. byrne: i appreciate the gentleman words. i appreciate his understanding, having herd heard his words i withdraw my amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i do have another amendment at the desk. number 83. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: earment number offered by mr. mcnerney of california. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to issue federal debt forgiveness or capital repayment forgiveness for any district or entity served by the central valley project. if the district or entity has been subject to an order from the securities and exchange commission funding a violation
7:35 pm
of section 17-a-2 of the securities act of 193315 u.s.c. 77 qa-2. the chair: if you were does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: my amendment is being raised to raise awareness of a very unjust situation. my amendment would ban federal funding for debt forgivetons any entity that's been subject to an order finding a violation of the securities act of 1933. this is timely because there was a hearing yesterday in the natural resources committee that included two bills that would affirm a drainage settlement between the united states and westlands water district this settlement would award federal
7:36 pm
foregiveness to westlands which has violated such an s.e.c. order. these agreements matter because they will result in a $300 million taxpayer giveaway. they also fail to address or solve the extreme water pollution these irrigation districts discharge into the san joaquin river in california delta estuary. these settlement agreements do not require enough land to be -- enough land retirements and provide more access to water further draining the delta. and there are no real performance standards that are oversight if pollution runoff is mismanaged. considering recent news of s.e.c. findings of westlands due to its conduct in misleading investors about the financial help, the lack of specific performance standards and enforcement tools makes the current settlement terms even more questionable. my amendment will ban the
7:37 pm
government from funding the debt forgiveness of these agreements not only because these agreements are bad for california, but no entity should have federal debt forgiveness when they have violated federal laws. mr. chairman, with that, i request unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, he amendment is withdrawn. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i would now like to bring up amendment number 39 dealing with the energy information administration. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. byrne of alabama, at eend of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the energy information administration. b, the amount otherwise made available by this act for department of energy, energy
7:38 pm
programs, energy information administration, is hereby reduced to zero dollars. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 743, the gentleman from alabama and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. byrne. mr. byrne: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would prohibit any funding from going to the energy information administration which under this bill is set to receive $122 billion in taxpayer money. rule 21 of the house rules prohibits funding programs that are not authorized under law. the authorization process is so important because it gives congress the ability to set each agency's agenda, provide proper oversilingt and ensure the agency is fulfilling the mission it was designed by congress to meet. nearly one third of the federal discretionary spending gos to programs whose mandates exist as expired. in this bill we will fund 28 programs that have expired authorizationsmark of which expired in the 1980's.
7:39 pm
one program that we are funding has existed since the 1970's, but has never been authorized by congress. the energy information administration, which this amendment would block funding for is one of the worst offenders. it's -- its authorization expired in 1984, over 30 years ago. that means the last time this agency received proper congressional instructions, oversight, and review, the los angeles raiders had won the super bowl, ronald reagan was in the white house and "ghostbusters" was in the theaters. the energy administration has seen its fair share of challenges since it was last authorized. in fact a few years ago, the "wall street journal" wrote an article about how errors by the e.i.a. caused a significant jump in oil prices. the same story noted the agency was vulnerable to hacking and information could be easily compromised. yet this body has not acted on an authorization. mr. chairman, i don't question that there may be important functions performed by this
7:40 pm
agency but at some point we must have accountability in the authorization process. if my amendment is approved, we can send a message as the house that we are serious about fiscal discipline and demand if a program is worthy to receive taxpayer funds it should be authorized by the congress. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. who seeks recognition. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: this is hard because in all honesty i agree with the gentleman. there are too many programs not authorized. unfortunately, it is not the appropriations committee's responsibility, it's the authorizing committees that haven't been doing their job. it's not the e.i.a.'s fault that they're not re-authorized, it's that congress has not done their job at re-authorizing them. there are many, many programs, i think the whole department of state is up for re-authorization, hasn't been re-authorized. and you're absolutely right.
7:41 pm
we need to do something about that. we've been debating and discussing how exactly you do that and we've had various proposals and in fact, our conference is looking at it now. members of our conference. i know mr. mcclintock is very interested in doing this. we've talked about it several times, trying to find some way to force the authorizing committees to actually do their job and do the re-authorizations that are necessary. but i rise to oppose this amendment, the amendment proposes to eliminate funding for the energy information administration, a semiindependent agency that collects, analyzes and disseminates impartial statisting to the nation. the eia performs essential work for understanding the energy consumption in the complex energy marks that make up our nation. it provides statistical and informational service to the private sector would not. eliminating this funding would immediately impact the ability to inform energy policy and
7:42 pm
would remove essential reports on the energy market. eliminating the eia would have virtually no effect on the total spending in this bill but would negatively impact our ability to make emergency policies. i must oppose this amendment while i sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do and would be willing to work with him and any others willing to work with a way to force us, the authorizing committees to do the authorizations that should be being redone or the re-authorizations that should be being redone and the reason things expire and the reason they need to be re-authorized is because you need to look and see if they're doing what we intended when we enacted them. sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. sometimes they need to be modify. sometimes they need to be amended. if we don't get back to re-authorizing them that never happens. that's our fault. congress' fault. so i'd be happy to yield. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i appreciate the chairman yielding to me. i agry with his opposition to
7:43 pm
thement. why blame one of the best parts of our government, in my opinion, for congress not doing its job? i am always impressed by the energy information administration. their data is stellar, their profession -- they're professionally run. the business community looks to them, frankly, the global energy community looks to them. i think the amendment is shortsighted and would eliminate one of the best, most important sources of information that guides all of our decisions. they are so precise, the data they present also can be easily understood, they have mapped -- maps, they have charts, they have continuous data over a number of years and i would hope that the gentleman, i think he wants to solve a problem but i don't think that one could say that this amendment might be penny wise, pound foolish because if you've had any experience with the energy information administration, you
7:44 pm
know how excellent they really are and their work is. we depend on it to make solid decisions to save money rather than -- or to make decisions that are sound rather than unsound. don't rip the heart out of one of the most important administrations that we have at the federal level on the energy front and i thank the chairman for yielding and urge this amendment be defeated. mr. simpson: this is something that i've been trying to find a solution to for a numb of years. when i was chairman of the interior appropriations committee, this has been like four years ago, the endangered species act had not been re-authorized for 23 years at the time. it's like 27 years now it has not been re-authorized. we brought down the interior appropriation bill and put no money in it for endangered species listing or critical habitat designation and the intent was to force the committee, the resources committee, to do a re-authorization of the endangered species act. and the individual who was
7:45 pm
supporting me the most was the then-chairman of the resources committee. well, of course we lost an amendment because nobody wants to eliminate all the funding for the endangered species act but the gentleman that supported me the most was the chairman of the resources committee at the time who had the ability and the authority to go do a re-authorization of the endangered species act. but didn't do it. and it still hasn't been done. it is frustrating. and i want to work with anybody in this body that's willing to try to find a way to put pressure on the committees to do their job and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from idaho yields back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized.
7:46 pm
r. burn: i urge the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. he amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will report the ealt. the clerk: amendment offered by new york. ney of none of the funds made available july 21, d in 1372 of
7:47 pm
01, further amendments to executive order equal employment in the federal government and employment opportunity. the chair: the chair recognizes the the gentleman from new york mr. malonchey. mrs. maloney: i came to the floor to preserve protections for lgbt amendments and going to contractors who discriminate. that's it. you can't fire people just for being gay. and simple math will tell you mill kwlons would be protected. it made sense.
7:48 pm
it was fair and deserved a fair vote. supported n majority this amendment. 217 yes votes, four more than the 213 needed that day to pass. that equality had won the vote. when the world watched something else happened, something about sticking up for fairness for lgbt americans. my bill would apply the same standards that we have long applied because of their race, gender or disability it was too much. too much. ve and just wouldn't do. so people went to work rgs all
7:49 pm
members voted. the expired clock stayed open. the gavel did not fall. he tally began to change, 217, 21, 215, the votes were dropping. members of this house were changing their votes. why? in support of fairness and down no onee wipt 21, 213 and came to the well, ain it was happening in sight and what happened? the t hit 212, one vote, majority had the few moments earlier as the gavel came down and the result was declared a defeat. it was a shameful exercise ap it
7:50 pm
took place on a civil rights vote a bipartisan from portland, maine to iowa to california, chorus,r board joined a sthame they said who would betray this vote and shame on anyone who had rigid this vote and rig our democracy. shame on those who and especially those swisk who voted for fairness. and on friday at a meeting at ur advisory board i spoke to civilians who dedicated their lives to a person who were
7:51 pm
outraged. one member of the group, a medic in vietnam said when she thought of her daughter and her daughter is a lesbian. workill enter the civilian force. will they be able to fire her even though she and i are veterans. deas her service right now count for anything right now. there is 71 thureks lgbt service servicemen and women and making t easier to fire americans and sn't honoring our values, it's sacrificing them to worn out
7:52 pm
that weakens our nation. ryanday, i want to speaker so i can offer my amendment again. it is through this open process and give our colleagues a second chance to do the right thing. let us ensure that no taxpayers ill be able to discriminate. and we will reaffirm religious ex emshon. discrimation has no place in our law. it does not power our homes and does president defeat ayesis. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman will suspend and the gentleman is not recognized.
7:53 pm
who seeks recognition? >> i have an amendment to the amendment. >> mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment to the amendment. ms. kaptur: could we ask that the amendment be read the clerk: offered by mr. pitts and offered by mr. ma lonnie and insert before the period at the end of the following, exet as required by the first amendment, the 14th amendment and article one of the constitution. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 7 3, the gentleman om pennsylvania and a member will control five minutes to the amendment of the amendment ms. kaptur: i would like to reserve a point of order.
7:54 pm
the chair: the point of order is served and the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i would like to offer this perfecting amendment. this amendment is very simple nd would merely state as the federal government spend money with regard to contracting the administration must not run afoul of the th amendment, 14th amendment. the president's executive order referred to defines a law that was never defined by congress. it violates the equal protection rights of individuals that are seeking work. with this amendment, this congress can help ensure that while funds may be going out the door to implement drk
7:55 pm
>> will the gentleman yield for a question. mr. pitts: when i'm fin ird. with this amendment, this congress can help ensure while funeds may be going out the oor, he must respect congress' authority and exercise his or her religion and respect their rights to work. oes anyone in this chamber seriously oppose article one of the constitution? i urge my colleagues in supporting the constitution and limiting the damaging effects of this executive order. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition.
7:56 pm
mag mrs. maloney: i have opposition mr. speaker, may i have the amendment read back. the clerk: insert before the period at the end, except as required by the first amendment, article one of the constitution. mr. maloney: i would like to ask what is meant by article one of the constitution. no one who supports this amendment has any problem, sir, with the first amendment, the 14th amendment, particularly the equal protection clause or article 1 of the constitution. i would note and i'm sure the gentleman would appreciate that
7:57 pm
many times, presidents under their authority of the constitution have acted in the area of workplace discrimation. would the gentleman oppose president truman's intergreags of the armed forces. does that violate article 1 of the constitution, the 14th amendment or the 4th amendment of the constitution. the president under his authority, taken to end discrimation. nothing in my amendment is in any way in odds. but it should not be allowed to go unchallenged on the floor of this house that president obama n his executive action ran
7:58 pm
afoul. i'm upaware of those executive orders. if there was something unconstitutional. i don't think anybody would contest the president's authority what he did in 2014 and one of the signature actions. so far from being concerned about reconciling our activities with the constitution they are consistent and therefore i would ask the gentleman to include article 2 of the constitution which would specify the powers of the president. would the gentleman answer that question. in other words, if we are so fond of the constitution, including the civil war amendments and due process and we had dispute about that.
7:59 pm
try to make it more progressive of people like me, color, how about we include the whole constitution, can we do that? the chair: the gentleman will address --? moan known can we do that. hearing no objection. we are including the powers of the constitution under article 2. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania has yielded back his time. therefore, the gentleman from new york is recognized on the amendment to the amendment. you have two minutes remaining. >> the point of today's vote is to redo a mistake that made in
8:00 pm
this house. it was an effort to change the outcome of a bipartisan majority supporting an amendment to end discrimation in federal contracting. today what we are doing is getting a second bite at the apple. free from any pressure, from vote swapping or switching and long after it should have closed. the american people want to know if they are on the level. we know there is a bipartisan majority for equality on this use, we know what it the outcome will be and i reserve. . the chair: the gentleman from new york has all the time remaining. mrs. maloney: i yield back, mr. speaker. ms. kaptur: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word.
8:01 pm
the chair: does the gentlewoman continue to reserve her point of order on the amendment to the amendment? s. kaptur: we are willing to we would request withdrawing the point of order, mr. chairman. the chair: without objection. does the gentlewoman seek recognition in opposition? ms. kaptur: i do. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i wanted to say that i associate myself with congressman maloney's remarks. workplace skimmings is -- discrimination is a crime that we as lawmakers have long sought to mitigate. and i have to say, i admire him for his courage, for his
8:02 pm
eloquence, and for being here this evening. and i would like to yield my remaining time to him in order to complete his statement. mrs. maloney: i thank -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the remaining time. mrs. maloney: how much time is remaining -- mr. maloney: how much time is remaining, mr. speaker? the chair: you have 4 1/2 minutes.
8:03 pm
mr. maloney: mr. speaker, thank you for your indulgence. mr. speaker, i want to make it perfectly clear that we stand here, we stand here servants of the constitution, all of us. and all of the actions we take here are subject to that beautiful document as amended. and so there's nothing about the gentleman's amendment, to the extent that it simply restates what is obvious, which is that all of our actions are subject to the constitution. that we would object to. and my only point is simply that we need to read it as a whole document. we don't need to read anything into it. we can read the text. we can understand the history of the text. we can understand the global
8:04 pm
and expansive nature of the language written into the constitution after the searing experience of the civil war, around equal protection, around due process. we don't fear the constitution. we welcome it. we embrace it. we claim it as our own when we come to this floor and ask that the circle of opportunity be widened for others who have been excluded before. we think that's in the best tradition of the american constitution. we believe the constitution provides a series of promises, it's a poll sear note. and that a check was written. we're coming to check it. that we'll all be treated equally and fairly, that we all count. regardless of who we love, regardless of the color of our skin, whether we walk in or roll in, we believe we all count. we believe that the constitution enshrines those values in the most beautiful way in all of human history. so far from being concerned in any way by the gentleman's amendment, we welcome it. but let it not detract from the fact that what happened in this house was an effort to enshrine
8:05 pm
and rationalize discrimination under federal law. and despite the success we had in defeating that, with a bipartisan majority, there were those here who wanted to perpetuate discrimination at the expense of equality. that is inconsistent with the constitution, mr. speaker. and let that be the final word on this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from ohio controls the remainder of the five minutes. ms. kaptur: may i ask how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentlelady from ohio has a minute and a quarter. ms. kaptur: let me just end by saying this country has a long and storied history of supporting civil rights. and worker rights. and that spirit was violated last week during the vote on the spending bill. we know that businesses should operate under strict rules of fairness and equality and certainly the federal government should. i'm just grateful that we could all be here this evening and
8:06 pm
try to find a way to move america forward and to make progress, not just for the people of this country, but for humankind. this amendment will ensure that we're able to achieve a fully equitable workplace in society. i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. all time having expired on the amendment to the amendment, does anyone seek opposition to the original amendment, the maloney amendment? if not, the chair will put the question on the amendment to the amendment. the question is on the amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment to the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
8:07 pm
in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from new york. mr. maloney: request a recorded vote. the chair: does the gentleman request the yeas and nays? mr. maloney: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: all right. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate. and report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. byrne of alabama. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act shall be used in contravention of, one, the religious freedom restoration ct of 1993, 42 united states code 200-bb. two, executive order 13279 or section 702-a of the civil rights act of 1964, 42 united 2000-e-1-a, united
8:08 pm
states code, or section 103-d of the americans with disabilities act of 1990, 42 united states code, 12113-d with respect to any religious corporation, religious association, religious educational institution or religious society. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 743, the gentleman from alabama and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair -- the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bryne: thank you, mr. chairman. unlike our european forbearers, the framers made clear that our nation would have no state church. instead under the first amendment all would be protected in the free exercise of the religion of their choosing. and we have a proud tradition of conserve tism -- conservatives and liberals, republicans and democrats working together to protect this free exercise right. in the 1963 case of sherbert vs. verner, the liberal justice mandated that any government intrusion into one's free exercise must meet the most
8:09 pm
stringent standard of judicial review, strict scrutiny. it was actually the conservative justice, antonin scalia, who wrote the 1990 opinion, employment division vs. smith, that rolled back the protections of sherbert. fortunately three years later, a democrat congress and a democrat president, bill clinton, rallied large bipartisan majorities to legislatively overturn smith in the religious freedom restoration act, otherwise known as riff are a. and restore -- ref are a. and restore -- rfra. rfra had 170 co-sponsors. the gentlewoman from california, ms. pelosi, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, were original co-sponsors. it passed by a voice vote in the house. and 97-3 in the senate. on july 21, 2014, president obama signed an executive order 11478 banning federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual
8:10 pm
orientation and gender identity in hiring. unfortunately, despite our broad history of working together to protect the free exercise right, the president refused to provide conscious protections for religious-based organizations who engage in government contracting. this amendment would clarify that existing religious freedom protections, already in law under the rfra, the americans with disability act, the 1964 civil rights act, and president bush's executive order 13279 would apply irrespective of the amendment offered by mr. maloney. we can debate the merits of executive order 11478. however, we should have no problem ensuring that religious entities still enjoy the protections of the free exercise of religion. i urge a yes vote on my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. anyone seek recognition in opposition of the amendment?
8:11 pm
for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: yes. i don't have a copy of the amendment in front of me. ut from what i have listened to, it sounds like discrimination in the guise of religious freedom. i would hope that isn't what .he gentleman intends i've just been given language, none of the funds made available by this act shall be used in contravention of the religious freedom restoration act. i don't have full confidence that the equal protection of the laws for the faith-based community are fully considered
8:12 pm
in this amendment and i would have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bryne: i reserve. the chair: reserves. the gentlelady from ohio. the gentlelady from ohio is ecognized. ms. kaptur: had i am in opposition to the amendment and -- i am in opposition to the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bryne: mr. chairman, i want to make very clear, my amendment says not one single thing about discrimination. it talks about religious freedom. and we treat religious freedom sometimes in this country like it's a secondary right. it's not. it's a fundamental right. and what my amendment does is make sure that people of religious conscience still have that freedom. so far from being discrimination, it makes sure that we have freedoms for people that they have had for
8:13 pm
over 200 years, and under the 1964 civil rights act for over 50 years, and under the americans with disability act for over 25 years, and under rfra for over 20 years. this is not new, this is not novel, this is settled law. we're making sure we protect people here. it has nothing to do with discrimination. i know there's some people who would like to wipe out the affect of church, the affect of religion, the affect of faith in the public scare in america. but that's not what our constitution -- square in america. but that's not what our constitution is about and i think this house should stand up for religious freedom for everybody. so i ask that everybody in this house for -- vote for this very important amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. ms. kaptur: mr. chairman, on
8:14 pm
that i'd 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 alabama will be postponed. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. higgins of new york. 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 it by the secretary of energy to carry out or for the salary of any officer or employee of the department of energy to carry out the proposed action of the department to transport target residue theerl from ontario, canada, to the united states, described in the supplemental analysis titled, supplement analysis for the foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel acceptance program issued by the department on november of 2015.
8:15 pm
the chair: pursuant to house resolution 743, the gentleman from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. higgins: thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank chairman simpson and ranking member cap -- kaptur for their work on this bill. my amendment would prohibit the shipment of dangerous, highly radioactive liquid nuclear waste which the department of energy plans to begin shipping by truck later this year in a series of over 100 shipments from ontario, canada, to south carolina. the department wants to transport this liquid waste, which is far more radioactive than spent nuclear fuel, across the northern border at the piece bridge and through downtown buffalo. in contrast to spent nuclear fuel in solid form, which has a history of being shipped by land, this would constitute the first ever shipment of liquid uclear waste by truck in a
8:16 pm
transportation cask that was never serltified for this purpose -- certified for this purpose. its liquid form, if spilled could, make containment nearly impossible. the route crosses the great lakes, across the busiest passenger crossing at the north border and through a high intensity metropolitan area. the consequences could be devastating. in spite of these concerns, the department of energy failed to comply with the national environmental policy act by not commencing with a new environmental impact statement, instead relying on old outdated information. it requires they reassess the manner in which they ship dangerous material. it would ignore the will of the house which passed legislation requiring department of homeland security perform a terrorism
8:17 pm
threat assessment regarding the transportation of chemical, biological and radiological materials. to reiterate my bill would have shipments and nuclear fuel would not be affected. y amendment would prohibit these until a process. proceeding without doing so would compromise public safety. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from new york reserves. does anyone seek recognition? the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. higgins: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.
8:18 pm
the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. grayson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida the chair: pursuant to house resolution 74 the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. grace gays this amendment is identical to other amendments that have been inserted by voice vote during the open rule during
8:19 pm
congress. nd 114th and due to serious misconduct on the part of the contractors. and i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman from florida resevers. anybody seek time in opposition? the gentleman from florida? mr. grayson: i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment s agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas arise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number five. the clerk: amendment number five printed in the coongsal record order by mr. bab on the of
8:20 pm
texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. babin: i rise in strong support of my amendment to prohibit to the islamics from being funded in this energy and water appropriations bill. as a result of this recent nuclear deal, iran has now cleared -- is now cleared to receive up to $150 billion ap never made its way back. iran is the leading state's sponsor of terrorism. dangerous sent to a regime that flounts international norms and threatens to wipe israel off the map and is response i will for
8:21 pm
the murders of hundreds of united states soldiers. passage of this amendment will to go to late clean iran. no money for contracts to buy their heavy water. no money for their so-called civilian nuclear power program. let's not get fooled. the iran deal has only given an ye vote by 162 members of this house, a very small total. the president may have lifted the sanctions but there is no reason we cannot take this step to show iran and the world that we are serious putting them back in place. i urge a yes vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who rises in opposition?
8:22 pm
ms. kaptur: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. can ms. kaptur: i oppose this amendment and i had logical riders have no place on appropriation bills certainly on this bill and frankly, i don't believe that this is even germ main to the energy and water bill. this amendment is the first of many possible attempts to tie the hands of the administration from implementing an important international agreement that will result in exactly the opposite of what the gentleman infierce. the plan of action that was greed to by several countries, closed the four pathways which iran could get to a nuclear weapon. we do not gain anything on the
8:23 pm
united states to the agreement. the president has repeatedly said he will take aggressive steps to counter any steps and this includes restrictions on nuclear and ballistic arms and travel bans as well as cargoo spppingses. international spptors are on the grouped and irpe is on the ntrusive regime to monitor a monitor program. nspectors will remain to monitor. 3658 days a year. for decades to come, they will have access to the nuclear supply chain. that is an incredible achievement the expertise in the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear
8:24 pm
materials play a critical role in ensuring that iran is meeting its commitments. experts, seven national laboratories have been involved in implementing the agreement. they will continue to support vital as ring and are the united states works with our union union partners to ensure visibility into the iran program. why would we cut off our program and experts to prevent iran to achieve programs? if iran tries to cheat and try to build a bottom, we will catch them. unless we in congress adopt
8:25 pm
amendments such as the one we re discussing now, iran is expanding its program. he agreement has cut off every single. i oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas has yielded back. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. for what purpose does the entleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the
8:26 pm
desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lowenthal of california, insert the following, section a, none of the funds may be used in contravention of 13457, b, none f the funds may be used to administer section 45 of this act. mr. lowenthal: mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the record. the chair: the gentleman from california and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: i loonk with other members have introduced an amendment to clife that the national ocean policy is a critical multi agency action that should be implemented.
8:27 pm
mr. chair, my district is a poster child for the need of ocean coordination and information sharing between local, state and federal governments and the military, ports, shippers, energy developers and recreational users. could have a thriving ocean economy and protect our ocean resources. the port of long beach is the econd busiest moving goods upporting $1.4 million jobs. offshore platforms, less than a mile from my front door. an clementey has a naval training ground. nearby waters are home to
8:28 pm
seabirds and whales. stream weather threatens businesses and the entire coast of california. with seach activity happening, it makes sense to have the navy at the table when noah is working on the installation. t makes sense to have them weigh in. and it's a no-brainer that none all work together to get these massive ships in and out of ports safely. we want these to happen because we want to have a sustainable ocean economy and by developing regional plans and have going a plan, we can streamline process
8:29 pm
and promote an economy that preserves our ocean resource us. the country and my district need an aapproach to our resources hich the national ocean policy has. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the chairman recognizes. such coordination must be done carefully to protect. mr. calvert: as with the proposed rules, strong congressional oversight is needed to ensure we protect private rights.
8:30 pm
this increases the overreach. it is so broad and sweeping and may allow the federal government allow agricultural, mining, fishermen and anyone else who may have impact on the oceans. the administration did not work with congress and even refused to provide information to congress so we can't be sure how sweeping it will be. that's why i support the language in the underlying bill and therefore oppose the amendment. . the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> mr. chairman, there's agreement among all of us that there needs to be more coordination among all of the stakeholders to make smart decisions about our ocean resources. mr. lowenthal: however many on the other side of the aisle oppose the national ocean policy on the grounds that it's overreach, which is authorized
8:31 pm
by an executive order from the president that they don't like. to me this seems petty. national ocean policy is not a failed policy like some suggest. nor is it an instance of executive overreach. it is merely a commonsense way to facilitate multistakeholder -- multistakeholder collaboration on complex ocean issues and it promotes economic opportunity, national security and environmental protection. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> i oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
8:32 pm
in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. meadows of north carolina. 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 spent by the army corps of engineers to award contract it's using the -- mr. meadows: i ask that the amendment be considered read. the chair: without objection, the reading of the bill is -- amendment is disposed of. pursuant to house resolution 743, the gentleman from north carolina and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be very brief. the night is getting long. and the committee has done some great work on the underlying bill.
8:33 pm
this amendment is a commonsense amendment, one meant to provide transparency as it relates to the army corps of engineers and the awarding of contracts. when they actually award a -- technically acceptable lowest-bid -- lowest bid that the rationale and the other transparency documents would actually be reported that no funds could be extended except for those express purposes and with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks recognition in opposition? seeing none, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. meadows: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment agreed to.
8:34 pm
for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 356. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert following. section, none of the funds made available by this act for department of energy, energy programs, science, may be used in contravention of the department of energy organization act 42 united states code 7101, etc. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 743, the gentlelady from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i also want to thank the ranking member, ms. kaptur, her staff, and the chairman of the subcommittee, mr. simpson, and staff and others because we have been working hard. i want to emphasize that this is an amendment that was approved and adopted in an identical form on april 29, 2015, during the 114th congress
8:35 pm
as an amendment to h.r. 202, the energy and water resources appropriation. i do this amendment because i do believe it is extremely important. if you travel around this country, whether it's silicon valley, whether it's nasa, whether it's dealing with energy resources, renewable and otherwise, you realize the importance of science, technology, engineering and math. 20 years ago, mr. chairman, on february 11, 1994, president clinton issued an executive order 12898 directing federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations. the department of energy seeks to provide an equal access to these opportunities for under-represented groups in stem, including minorities, native americans and women. which means that we need the professionals in these areas to be able to assess the various impacts, environmental impacts, on the minority communities. but more importantly, we also need our organizations such as
8:36 pm
historically black colleges and other colleges to make sure to include opportunities for minority and women students. they make up 70% of college students but only 45% of undergraduate stem degree holders. this large pool of untapped talent is a great potential source of stem professionals. as the nation's demographics change, i think it is imperative that every year we emphasize in the various federal agencies that we need to provide and extend opportunities for minorities in science, technology, engineering and math. just earlier today i had the opportunity to visit with scott kelly, one would call him the miracle astronaut, spending over 300 days on the space station. space station was the entity built some years ago when i was on the science committee. but to realize that a human being tested himself to stay an american making history. so i believe science, technology, engineering and math commemorates and celebrates the giant work of scott kelly, but it produces
8:37 pm
more scott kellys. i applaud the energy secretary moniz's commitment which will increase the nation's economic and competitiveness and enable more of our people to realize their full potential -- potential. so i would ask my colleagues to support this amendment as it has been supported in the past to again through this legislation emphasize the importance of science, technology, engineering an math. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. who seeks time in opposition? seeing none, the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i'll be happy to yield back, asking support for the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentlelady will please send his amendment to
8:38 pm
he desk. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. stivers of ohio. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the cape wind energy project on the outer continental shelf off massachusetts nantucket sound. the chair: the gentleman from ohio and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment, which would prohibit the department of energy from funding -- for any funding being used for the cape wind offshore wind generation
8:39 pm
project in cape cod, massachusetts. . i offered this amendment in last year's appropriation, it was adopted by a voice vote. so i believe it should be fairly noncontroversial and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. nearly two years ago the department of energy offered conditional commitments for the cape wind project of $150 million loan guarantee. but since that time, the project has been plagued by setbacks amid concerns about the impact on the environment, disruptions of safety for passenger aircraft, or just the high cost of electricity produced by the proposed facility. last year two of the state's utilities terminated contracts to purchase power from the wind farm jeopardizing the viability of the project. i believe we should encourage the development of all forms of energy, including renewable energy like wind, power, and they're important for our nation owes portfolio, but this project in particular has a troubled history and it amendment seeks to ensure that
8:40 pm
the american taxpayers do not have to foot the bill if the project fails. mr. chairman, i urge adoption of the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ho seeks opposition? seeing none, the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. chairman. again, i would urge adoption of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 360. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, the amounts otherwise provided by this act are revised by reducing the
8:41 pm
amount made available for corps of engineers civil investigations and increasing the amount made available for the same amount by $3 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 743, the gentlelady from texas and a me observe posed each will control -- opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me thank mr. simpson and ms. kaptur for their work on this bill. as well to emphasize the importance of this legislation to many and all regions of the united states of america. my amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the u.s. army corps of engineers investigations account. let me be very clear. it speaks to the general need of the robust funding of the investigation account, and it speaks to it in terminology redirecting $3 million for increasing -- increases funding for postdisaster watershed assessment studies like the one
8:42 pm
that is being contemplated for the houston-harris county metropolitan area. so it does this to emphasize the importance of the investigations account. not to single out a particular project. but for describing a project, which i will take time to do. i am pleased that h.r. 5055 provides $120 million for the investigations account. this is very important to the army corps of engineers. as a federal agency that collects and studies basic information pertaining to river and harbor flood and storm damage, shore protection, ac wattic ecosystem -- aquatic ecosystem and river and harbor and flood and storm damage reduction, the u.s. army corps of engineers plays a critical role in the building, maintaining and expanding the most critical of the nation's infrastructure. we understand this very well in my home state of texas and the 18th congressional district. over the last two years, mr. chairman, two years around the
8:43 pm
exact same time, we didn't have something called a hurricane, we had a heavy rain. in april, may of 2015, and april of 2016. 2016 was 20 inches of rain, which was enormous. the damage was unbelievable. let me cite for you the words from the greater houston partnership that supports this amendment. the most telling statistic of all, based on the 7,021 calls the united way of greater houston received, the 1,987 calls for food replacement, and the amount of money that was lost, $1.9 billion in damage during the weeks that followed the storm, which includes damages to homes, cars, schools, parks, churches, roadways and other important items. this is what we face in houston, texas. o i am recounting that and
8:44 pm
indicating that we believe that this investigations account is so very important, and it will have the opportunity through a $3 million study to deal with the things located in the ouston area. hunting bayou and clear creek bayou and others. as the army corps of engineers works through its work study program, this investigations account will be enormously important. we have also received a letter from members of the united states congress supporting the study of all of the bayous in our community. we want to ensure that, again, that the count is robust to provide that possible opportunity. so let me indicate to my colleagues, again, the investigations account is $120 million. we rise to support it. we also rise to acknowledge the need for the utilization of those funds all over america,
8:45 pm
and certainly in houston,-harris county, texas, and the surrounding counties which will help us through a study have a better pathway, how do we fix this, how do we not have this be houston next year in 2017? so let me thank my colleagues, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. who seeks time in opposition? the chair: the gentleman is recognized is recognized. >> i understand her interest. mr. simpson: the fact that the ergy and water bill includes 13.2 billion, the bill also allows for new studies to be to the gentlelady as one of them. this amendment does not tchange the funding bill and i do not oppose. he chair: the alyields back.
8:46 pm
ms. kaptur: i wanted to put on the record that congressman jackson lee has been unrelenting of her representation of houston aun the serious situation that s faced by the citizens by the flodding what a tremendous voice you are. there isn't a time i see you in the elevators and ask me about this bill and i want the to put it on the record. he chair: the the jam yields back. ms. jackson lee: i thank them for their kurt cyst and i have acknowledged and have policed in the legislation and i ask my colleagues to support this amendment as a very fine
8:47 pm
statement contributing to the people of the nation and the people of texas and thank you. and i ask you for support of the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by gentlelady texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. he amendment is agreed to. flop the gentleman from oklahoma seek reck anything? the clerk will report the amendment? the clerk: before the short , noneinsert the following of the funds made available may a used to fund to result a rule that may have an effect on the economy as specified of executive order of september 30,
8:48 pm
2003. the chair: yasm oklahoma and a . mber opposed each will >> there are costly administrations may try to. my amendment would prohibit funds to purpose or finalize any major regulation to january 20 of next year. in the past we have seen regulations between the day of regulation and the day the new president takes office. in twation and 2000 the midnight regulations. we expect this administration to maintain this practice and with the nature of the regular layings we have seen over the past eight years this amendment
8:49 pm
is more important than ever. let's mr. walberg and hold the executive branch in heck where families don't fall burden. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks time in opposition? entlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i rise in opposition to amendment, it is costly and inefficient and rules back progress in a department that has been expensing tremendous leadership under the doctor. t would stop the department of ergy that may cost more than $100 million. this is another attempt to toure that agencies are able
8:50 pm
protect our nation. what if that had been done when he cleep water act was pass. and d.o.e., the amendment would uth 14 rules, a third of amendments would finalize. and it would have resources for d.o.e. in these agreements. this makes month sense. we need to move on with the business of america. but taking the view, this is nothing new. time and again we have seen legislation that only looks at the loss costs and completely ignores the associated been fits to our country. this amendment is no different.
8:51 pm
rules. ifer looks the every new rules recruit nieses as well as key stakeholders and the public to a very, very extensive input that agencies seek. let me plain. for significant rules, an agency must provide with an assessment with a quantification with the beb benefit. has th the rule, the eeg to justify the costs and these costs are justified with benefits. for example, in the 2015 analysis in the significant regulations over the last decade the been physician of these ules outwiggede the benefits
8:52 pm
9-1 and these have benefited. typical american ouseholds saves 200 a year whether it is more a more efficient refrigerator, light ulbs, we know the been physician. they provide benefits. the updated standards will ssist in reducing carbon missions helping this nation curb change. republicans should stop ignoring the world wide benefits and the progress we are making as a country.
8:53 pm
and i reserve my remaining time. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. >> the clean water act had nothing to do with pumping sewage. and so, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. cost ofrt about talking living, due to the amount of inflation that has been brought on as a business owner, i will understand the cost. through rulemaking, legislators lose the ability to legislate which is what our founding fathers set up the legislative branch. we surrendered that when we allow the executive branch to
8:54 pm
clean the circulate of their last years in office. this is how far i'm going to go back and this isn't a republican or democrat thing. during the midnight hours which they idered november 8, sued 531 pages of midnight regulation the. ,000 480 pages of mid yite regular laying. 20,000 18 pages. 2 nton administration, 26, pages of mid yate regulation office. he leaves the all i'm saying let
8:55 pm
legislators set up and don't allow the executive branch to allow and go on and i yield -- i reserve. the chair: the gentleman eserves. ms. kaptur: i oppose the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the grol yields back. >> i urge to pass yes or pleased -- i accept the amendment and vote for the amendment so we we can hold the administration. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oak. -- oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to. the chair recognizes the
8:56 pm
gentlelady from text ms. jackson lee: this is my final amendment and i thampling you so very much and let me offer appreciation to you. and let me frame -- the chair: is the gentlelady offering an amendment. ms. jackson lee: i was rushing to make this my last one. i have an last one. the clerk: insert the following, sfecks, they are revised by reducing by corps of gears and same account by $100 million. the chair: the gentlelady from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. jackson lee joel my previous amendment dealt with the nvestigations account which is
8:57 pm
the predecessor to the construction account. let me say i took to the floor of the house in may of a the floods occurred and had a moment of sealens. mr. chairman, this wasn't a hurricane or a tornado, but hard rains that caused individuals in their cars to drown. very, very tragic. some going to work. some nurses. this is what it looked like in my district and looked like the same way in 2015 and again in 2016. and so the construction account, which i want to thank miskaptur nd mr. simpson has $1.9
8:58 pm
billion in that account and the construction account is important to members across the nation and important to the region. harris county as they collect information per pained to the shore protection, money that tant will will be important. a study and then the instruction. the areas that may be impacted necessaryy corps, and over.e areas that spilled on april 15, appear estimated 24-good ops felled in a
8:59 pm
poufer period. that's why these construction dollars are so important. and north of-10, my congressional district. houston may 20126 flood and0 homes were 5,000 homes were flooded. our previous numbers were april 15 and 2016 was when they had the constant rain. $240 billion gallons. >> so this construction account is so very important. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee which is the broader view of how these dollars can be utilize to sive
9:00 pm
lives in regions that i live in the houston, harris county area. mr. simpson: i seek time in opposition although i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: seing our communities flooding can be extremely frustrating. that's why the energy and water bills have included significant money above the budget request for the army corps of engineer flood and storm damage account. this more than doubles the budget requested for construction of these projects. is an increase of 113% or $457 million. more specifically, the billen cludes $392 million in

99 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on