tv U.S. House Debates Minibus Spending Bill CSPAN July 26, 2017 7:59pm-10:00pm EDT
these algae blooms are frightening and a major water system was shut down for three days denying water to people for three days. it's quite frightening and at the moment there are no -- and i say this for the corps' benefit because it would require cooperation. there is no mapping or drone technology currently which is large regions and hone in on where the nutrients are that are causing the problem. as i have gotten into this more deeply, we need high sense, or whatever we use, we do not have the ability to hone in on where the causes are coming and then target the toxic portions of
those algeep blooms. a lot of work is needed and i appreciate the gentleman rising tonight and i know you have gotten the corps' attention as you have gotten our attention and we will work with the chairman. and i yield back. mr. simpson: i appreciate the gentlelady's comments. we need to work with the e.p.a. in trying to address this issue because it is a lot broader than most people think. so i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to the order of the house of today, it is now in order to consider amendment number 35 printed in house report 115-259.
for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. peck: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 35 printed in house report 115-259, offered by mr. heck of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentleman from washington, mr. heck, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is about tackling a problem that affects every single one of us in every single one of our district, and that is storm water. most of us don't think about it much but frankly when rain falls, it does a lot of that in the northwest, and close to our streets, off the shoulders of our highways it picks up all sorts of pollutants and we're talking about nasty stuff.
toxic chemicals like cars nick and flame retardants and oils an pesticides. stop and think. the single largest contributor of water pollution in the united states of america is storm water runoff. up to 8 0% in some places. toxic storm water runoff harm ours rivers and lakes and water ways. it not only harm ours environment, it harm ours businesses that depend on clean water. like the shellfish industry of washington state which employs thousands of people. in puget sound, the largest estuary in america, storm water runoff literally can kill a salmon in a few hours. salmon and other fish are a way of life in washington, to the tune of a $30 billion, with a b, dollar economy. salmon also serve as a vital resource of immeasurable value for the 19 federally recognized tribes in the puget sound,
salmon is the way of life. they are called the salmon people. if we fail to address the problem posed by storm water, these resources will continue to decline and our communities will continue to pay an avoidable price. so what are we doing right now to stop this from happening? the answer is a few things but nowhere near enough. if we are going to truly address the problem, the federal government needs to do the basics. and that's set an example. the good news is that congress has recognized this in the past. because about 10 years ago, this body passed a law which requires federal agencies to reduce stormwater runoff when they develop or redevelop property. that's a commonsense requirement. but we can't stop there. research shows that the most cost effective and efficient way to reduce stormwater runoff is through what's called green infrastructure or low-impact development. things like gardens and permeable pavement and green roofs.
you probably won't be surprised when i share that the largest stormwater research center in the united states of america is in my district. at our land grant university, washington state university's extension campus in puyallup. so i'm a witness to the promise and potential of this approach. this amendment simply provides funding for the army corps of engineers to determine to what extent they're using these technologies and techniques to comply with the requirements already imposed by congress. mr. chairman, if we're going to help communities and businesses impacted by toxic stormwater runoff, it's crucial that the federal government set the example and lead the way. so i ask you to join me as responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars and ensure that federal agencies are using the latest and most efficient technology to manage stormwater runoff. finally, i want to extend my deepest appreciation to the chir of the committee, my friend from idaho and the ranking member
from ohio, very, very much. i urge adoption of this amendment and i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition though i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: i agree with what the gentleman is trying to do. i would point out his money doesn't direct the funds to any particular activity so it will take some coordination with us and some conversation with the army corps of engineer to make sure it goes in the area we would like toyota go to to study what the gentleman is talking about. but because it doesn't direct it to a particular activity, for that reason, and because it does not upset the balance of me bill, i'll support the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. o -- is agreed to.
it is now in order to consider amendment number 37 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. is the gentlewoman the designee. ms. kaptur: i rise as the designee of congressman beyer. the chair: the cleric will designate the amendment. e clerk: amendment number 35 offered by ms. kaptur of ohio. the chair: the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio. ms. kaptur: yes. my amendment would essentially strike the provision related to the watts -- watts of the united states, section 108.
unfortunately, republican insistence on the inclusion of poison pill riders like this one has derailed several important pieces of legislation over the last few years, especially clean water rule riders. however, let me be plain. this rider is worse than any of those previous versions and it will not gain the democratic votes necessary to become law. it actually is a roadblock in the way of us moving our bills forward. this rider would exempt the repeal of the clean water rule from laws that would otherwise apply, including the administrationive preet yours act essentially allowing the president to act unilaterally. the executive branch to act unilaterally without any input from the public. that doesn't sound like america to me. the administrative procedures act was a republican idea to make sure that government is
accountable to its citizens and that their input be considered. people have come to expect this in their own community. exempting this action on clean water is a very slippery slope toward government by fiat, by an administration which deserves more scrutiny, i might add, on that front than any in our history. so i urge all my colleagues to support the kaptur-beyer amendment. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: this is going to be something the ranking member and i happen to disagree on. poison pill riders, i always like that term, poison pill riders, what they are is policy changes. and if they are policy changes you like, they are policy changes. if you don't like them they are
poison pill riders. when they had the majority they put what we consider poison pill riders in their bill but they were policy changes. that's what we do in some appropriation bills. i rise in opposition to this amendment. i have been debating this issue for, i don't know, probably 10 years. while the change in administration means we're going to reduce the number of issues we need to address in this bill some issues warrant continued oversight.al lotus is one of them. the supreme court has twice ruled that the definition used under the clean water act of navigable waters was hard to define. and told them they need a new definition. the e.p.a.'s design on a new definition is ok we'll just control everything. everybody thinks those waters that were -- that are now under
control of the clean water -- of the wotus rule written by the obama administration were unregulated before. they were not. they were regulated by the states and the states did a good job of regulating those things. now the federal government has come in and taken control of all those state. we think, and the courts have ruled, that this is too broad a definition of what they intended and what the clean water rule states. nobody wants dirty water. nobody. but what we want is a rule that separates what the federal government has the authority to control and what the states have the authority to control. president trump moves quickly on this issue by issuing an executive order in february and a few weeks ago the e.p.a. and the corps announced the first steps in a two-step process a proposed rule to resend the wotus rule and recodify the previous regulatory text. the second step will be a second rule making to re-evaluate the
definition of waters of the united states in a manner consistent with the supreme court decision. the provision in this bill is supportive of these efforts. first it provides clear authorization to withdraw the obama administration's rule. second, it clarifies what rule will be in effect if the wotus rule is withdrawn, specifically the same rules in effect immediately prior to the mom all gation of the final wotus rule. third, it does not affect the trump's -- trump administration's ability to develop a new rule, one that will provide more clarity and certainty for the regulated community while staying in the legal bounds provided by the supreme court. for these reasons, i have to oppose this amendment and strongly oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio. ms. kaptur: i would like to comment , in asking my colleagues to support this amendment, the amendment itself is intended to address the two supreme court decisions. and in addition, if we leave
this language in the bill, the chairman was correct, this is at the policy level this doesn't belong in an appropriation bill. let them deal with this in the courts and the authorizing committee. and i think it creates a very, very high speed bump that threaten ours bill, our bill's passage as we move forward. i ask my colleagues to support us on the -- on striking the provision relate to the waters of the united states, section 108, offered by myself and mr. beyer of virginia. i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from west virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you for your leadership on this issue. wotus, watts of the u.s., it's been talked about for a number of years, this is a classic case of barack obama, the administration, previous to the trump administration's
overreaching its authority. this is executive branch takeover. watts of the u.s., saying that we've got what's called navigable waters and using the executive authority to redefine what navigable waters are. mr. jenkins: this hurts farmest, this hurts small businesses. the suggestion that a puddle, a small creek is a defined is -- is defined as a navigable water, we know that's not the case. let me remind folks about the three branches of government. legislative, executive and judiciary. we have a supreme court decision that was putting a stop to the overreach of the obama administration's wotus rule. thank you to the courts. we now have an opportunity as the legislative branch. we appreciate the work of the executive branch. we appreciate the fact that donald trump and scott pruitt and this administration is working to put a stop because
the court said, as we all know, the obama administration overreach. now what we are doing, what this appropriations bill provides is the voice of the legislative branch to say, yes, the prior administration overreached. the executive branch historically needs to be curtailed. the courts were right. we need to speak as the legislative branch giving the authority to stop this onerous rule. i applaud the work of the appropriations committee. we need to put the legislative stamp of approval on what the obama -- what the trump administration is doing to stop this overregulation. thank you and i certainly oppose this proposed amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by this gentlewoman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed.
tissue is not agreed to -- the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 38 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in house report 115-259 offered by ms. castor of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. castor: thank you, ms. castor: this bill weakens' america's commitment to clean energy and harms jobs that are being created and it stalls consumer cost savings tied to energy efficiency and democrats
have a different vision one that lowers costs on our neighbors back home and helps create the higher paying jobs. an mendment creates investment by $177 million and reduces for the fossil energy account. now energy efficiency and newable initiatives have a proven return on investments for taxpayers. this amendment is paid for by reducing but not eliminating accounts that do not have the same return on investments for taxpayers. investments in energy efficiency and renewables create jobs and help make our businesses more competitive. energy efficiencies reduces costs for consumers and wouldn't that be a positive development for taxpayers back home that congress is asking to put more
money back in their pockets. the amount proposed in the republican bill is so low that america will have to reduce the number of research, development and demonstration projects that are supported with industry, with at our great national laboratory, at our fantastic universities. and see, america should be a leader in innovation and technological investments but the republican bill says america should take a back seat. america should not take a back seat to anyone. we are in the midst of a technological revolution when it comes to energy efficiency. look what is happening all across america. we have a very diverse energy portfolio and growing clean energy sector. this is especially important as we tackle the costs and changes of the climate. look at where we are because of
investments in the past decade. the solar industry is creating jobs 12 times faster than the overall u.s. work force. one out of 50 new jobs was in solar energy. they used to say they were all of the above. the trump administration and house republicans are ceding america's leadership role in the world by failing toll invest in technologies that will save money. we should work together and face the challenges of the changing climate head on and not bury our eads in the sand, 15 of the 17 hottest years have been since 2001. the rising costs of the changing climate are a real threat to e especially to the families i represent back home in florida, which is why i filed another
amendment that was not ruled in order, an amendment that would limit the department of energy from removing the term climate change from their publications. that's right. the trump administration has already removed mention of climate change from government web sites and deleted the sentence to sea level rise. ignoring or trying to hide the cost of the changing climate will cost us more in the long run. we should be working together on investing in a clean energy future but that seems farther away today unless we adopt an amendment like mine and begin to understand the realities that we're facing. if we don't unleash american ingenuity now, our neighbors will face higher flood insurance bills and put more property taxes and waste water
infrastructure. so i appreciate ranking member vision. she was talking about our national labs. the fact that we have the best scientists in the world, don't hamstring by cutting back on investments on clean energy and energy efficiency. she understands this is our future we are talking about. i appreciate her work and i urge an aye vote on the castor amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes -- for what purpose does the gentleman from rise in? >> i rise in opposition in opposition. >> let's step back on this issue. as you can see from this chart. mr. mckinley: coal, natural gas and oil, fossil fuels make up
nation's s energy's consumption. but the proportion of r&d funding is only 18%, which is far below what's currently being spent on renewables and nuclear. in reality, the entire world are going to be dependent on fossil fuels to come. he estimation is that fossil energy will make up 70% of the energy used around the globe. are my friends, are they serious about addressing these emissions? shouldn't america's goal be to develop the technologies that we can utilize coal, natural gas around the world in the cleanest and most efficient way possible? shouldn't america be that global
leader that leadership on energy technology? you can't do that without research. o, mr. speaker, we can't -- we can't be cutting research on fossil fuels and technology. we should be increasing it. fossil fuels will be around for the for siebel future. we have the responsibility to make sure it is burned in the most clean manner that we can and this requires research. mr. speaker, the house is wildly defeated similar amendments in the past year after year and i hope they will do so, too. and i encourage its defeat. i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from is recognized for 15 seconds. ms. castor: i appreciate the remarks of the the gentleman from west virginia and well
spoken add vow for his state. i'm not hearing it. we have to look towards the future where are the jobs being created, things that are going to put money back into the ockets of consumers and unlesh so america can be the leaders. vote aye. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: the realization is that fossil fuels are consumed in all 50 states. it's not west virginia we are dealing with. you are concerned about your state and water quality and that's what this research is going to take care. we have to maximize the money. in the past we had far more amount of money in this. we need to preserve what we have and i'm hoping we can plus it up a little bit.
at this point, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. castor: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 39 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. norcross: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 39 printed in house report 115-259 offered by mr. norcross of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentleman from new jersey and a member
opposed will each control five minutes. mr. norcross: this amendment looks to the future and its need for 21st century clean energy economy and redirects funds where we are sufficiently investing in renewable energy and jobs of tomorrow. the amendment simply moves $162 million to the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy. it leaves the amount in that account in the underlying bill still exceeds what the administration requested. certainly my colleague from west virginia understands that investing in future of technology is extremely important. this moves $358 million more for the fossil fuels, by providing the additional resources to energy efficiency
and renewable energy, we can better meet the needs of a future economy. i agree we need to invest in all f the above, but we must invest. new jersey is second in the nation leadicing in solar and renewables. we must seek that cost effective way for manufacturing plants and our office building and certainly our homes. we shouldn't underfund our energy future. we should increst in it the way in this bill. there are future needs for renewable energy. tomorrow might be too late to do the investigation and that research. we can do it today because we need a long-term strategy that takes the best of what we do in america and continues that. if it's clean coal, we can do
that. if it's solar, we can do that. if it's wind, we can do that. and add high-paying jobs. let's make the simple change and allocate a small portion of the fund and i urge my colleagues to embrace the clean energy future. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: i seek time in opposition. i rise in opposition to the gentleman from new jersey's amendment. the department of energy fossil energy account actually helps the nation use the full extent of our resources safely. wisely and efficiently. i always hear members say and i have heard it several times tonight already that they support a quote all of the above energy strategy.
unfortunately this amendment does just the opposite. it picks energy winners and losers. the level of funding for fossil energy r&d in this year's bill recognizes the important role fossil energy plays in our nation's future. at a time when fossil-powered generation is actually expanding around the globe. the activities advance our nation's position as a leader in fossil energy technologies. i just hosted a conference in my home state, west virginia, on something that's getting a lot of attention lately, rare earth lemmingts. i want everybody just to think about that phone that they hold in their hand or if they're watching on tv, that tv in their
home, guess what? these phones and those tv's have what's called rare earth elements. and you think by the term rare earth, it must mean, gosh, their hard to find. rare earth elements are found in many places and amazingly coal of ins an abundant supply rare earth elements. this is important to our national security because currently, china has a monopoly on the rare earth element market, 90% of all rare earth elements that are in every phone, every tv, are controlled by china. but we know that coal, through research, can unlock an abundant supply of these critical elements that we need for every day technology. so this just isn't about energy
production, this is about every life. ms that impact our so for our nation's security and electric grid reliability and use of our domestic fossil fuel resources, investment in fossil r and d is critical. each of these programs represents a partnership that provides a greater leverage toll federal funds. therefore, i urge our members to vote against the gentleman from new jersey's amendment so we can support fossil energy r&d for our country and for our future. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. . . the gentleman from new jersey is ecognized.
>> in many way, i think the gentleman agrees with me. it's about balance. the dollars in the underlying the xceeded that -- what administration asked for. mr. norcross: let's not pick one winner, let's pick them all and see where it takes us. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the congresswoman from maine, ms. pingree, for her remarks. ms. pingree: thank you very much. i thank the gentleman for yielding. thank you. i rise today in strong support of the norcross amendment and i want to thank my colleague for calling attention to this issue and the importance of eere. i represent the state of maine and we have over 3,000 miles of tidal coastline and millions of acres of forest. we're famous for our natural resources and reck reagsal opportunities that they provide. so it would be no surprise if these resources are providing our residents with an abundance
of renewable energy resources. our state's natural resources and our efforts have made us one othe leaders in renewable energy development from solar to wind to title o-- tidele -- tidal to biomass, maine is a leader in renewable energy. because our state is largely a rural one with many diverse needs, we're particularly attentive to rising energy costs and the need to have more ways to solve them. this amendment today would restore fuvends to the eere account and will help the state of maine, like so many other states like it, that are working hard to move our energy policy to the 21st century. we have traditionally been one of the most oil dependent states in the country but this will help us address rising nrning costs with more tools and technologies at our disposal. i urge my colleagues to support renewable energy and i support this amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the chair recognizes the
gentleman from west virginia. opposition stand in to the gentleman's amendment. bottom line, his amendment guts fossil energy r&d. it takes over $300 million out of the fossil research and development, the kinds of research and development that can generate rare earth elements and other things we have talked, in addition to use for power generation. mr. jenkins: i simply oppose this amendment and ask for its rejection. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. pll norcross: this is the first me i've heard gutting when you're give manager than the administration. i've worked in coal-fired plants and gas-fired and others, this
is about the future of our energy needs. we don't know what it holds but i do know investing in energy development is the way to go. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> request a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 40 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. quigley: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 40, printed in house report 115-259,
offered by mr. quigley of yoil. the chair: the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. chairman. some of us in this room are old enough to remember duck and cover. as kids, the notion was that if you hid under a half inch plywood piece of desk under a thermo nuclear attack you'd be safe. not a particularly rational idea but not much more rational than our current nuclear posture. for decades, presidents and members of congress from both parties have worked together to prevent the use and spread of nuclear weapons and materials. starting with president reagan's leadership, american presidents have reduced the size of america's nuclear arsenal from its cold war peak. in fact, republican presidents have cut the arsenal far more aggressively than the democratic -- than their democratic counterparts. yet this year's energy and water bill doubles down on an outdated
cold war strategy by unnecessarily diverting presht resources to build new nukes. it remains unclear how these weapons will solve 21st century national security threats such as terrorism, cyberattacks or global warming. rather than wasting dollars to keep up the status quo, we must find ways to replace the u.s. nuclear arsenal while maintaining a force capable of deterring nuclear attack against the u.s. and its allies. in 2013, the pentagon determined that the u.s. could reduce its deployed strategic nuclear force by one third below its current levels and still meet security requirements. according to former vice chair of the joint chiefs of staff, the military utility of u.s. tactical nuclear weapons such as the b-61 is practically nil. defense secretary mattis has
raised doubt about the need for the new icbm and the need to take closer look at new nuclear armed cruise missiles. rather than wasting taxpayer dollars to keep up the status quo we must find ways to replace the nuclear force with a deterrent this bill proposes to add $1 billion to the nuclear weapons account by gutting the department of energy office sponsible for finding energy efficiency. the department is crucial to research and cooperate in clean, renewble energies. energy use reduction technologies, vehicle engines, geothermal technology and advance batteries. this a government success story. $12 billion invested in eere ielded more than $32 billion
return. entire industries are built on the back of the work eere does simulating a robust domestic clean energy economy. the role of eere is also critical to furthering the transition to a low carbon economy and creating sustainable economic growth. hat's why it would take $920 million and give it back to eere. this would still be a cut to their office. the current funds them at $986 million less than the current enacted level but it would go a long way toward fixing this mistake. i urge committee members to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. choim the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: i rise in opposition to the amendment, not just opposition but strong opposition to the amendment this bill fully funds the request of $10. billion for weapons
activities which is as the gentleman stated an increase of $921 million over fiscal year 2017. and i've got to tell you from his comments you would think we were growing the nuclear stockpile. the reality is we are decreasing the size of the stockpile currently under the new start treaty. but even having done that, we have to fund the modernization of our nuclear stockpile and it's one of my highest priorities in this bill. the activities the gentleman proposes to cut are the primary reasons the energy and water bill is being included as a division in the defense mini bus because maintaining nuclear weapons stockpile is essential to our nation's national security. the increase provided in this bill to weapons activities are needed to extend the life of four nuclear war heads and to address the continued deterioration of the infrastructure at the department of energy's nuclear sites. these investments are long
overdue and must be funded if our nation is to have a credible nuclear deterrent regardless of the size of that nuclear deterrent. i would say that the department of defense is carrying out a nuclear posture review that will inform future funding needs. until that concludes there's no change in our nation's nuclear defense requirements and congress, i believe, must fully fund those requirements if our nation is to have a credible nuclear deterrent. increases are also needed, as i said, to increase the aging infrastructure at the department of energy's nuclear energy site. i strongly oppose this amendment that the gentleman from illinois is offering and would encourage my colleagues to vote against it and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: respectfully, what the gentleman is talking about has been done many times. in 2013, the pentagon said we can do this with one third of the weapons we have now.
the cost of restoring a weapon like the b-61 is more than its weight in gold. we've already been told we have too many. so the plan here is, let's restore as many as possible, build as many as we possibly can and maybe in the future we'll be told again that we don't need this many. in the meantime we're using those resources to cut necessary programs. i ask for your support. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman yields. does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman yields back. mr. simpson: the secretary of energy is required to report to the president on the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. this is part of that requirement by the department of energy so they can assure the president our nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable. modernizing these nuclear weapons makes sense. we can sit and argue whether we need all these nuclear weapons or not, i think we could get by on quite a number fewer of
nuclear weapons but we still have to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile we currently have and let the department of defense do their nuclear posture review and make a determination of what ought to be the ultimate -- the ultimate number of knew cheer we haves we have. but as long as we have this, we have to make sure they're safe and reliable. i encourage my colleagues to yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the seament not agreed. to -- is not agreed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 41 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. choi, the -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 41 printed in house report 115-259,
offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: my amendment would restore the funding cuts to the energy efficiency and renewable energy account. just to fund at the same levels tv funded last year. that's $986 million. i'll tell you where we find those funds and take it from in a minute. it takes them from two programs, the fossil fuel energy and research account and the nuclear weapons account. we should invest in our future for energy efficiency and renewable energy rather than throwing more money at the past. and into nuclear weapons. fossil fuel research and development is a dead end for america. for our economy. for the clean air that we need. and for our water. continuing to fund fossil fuel, whether it makes them marginally cleaner or not is simply throwing money at the past rather than the future.
regardless of how clean we make fossil fuel extraction it's never as clean or more importantly as sustainable as renewable energy and definitely won't be as cheap or sustainable as clean energy. i'm a proud sponsor of a bill to -- for our country to reach 100% renewable energy by 2050, but to be able to do that we need the investment in research and development. frankly, investing in nuclear weapons when we already have enough nuclear capabilities to destroy every man, woman, and child on this planet seven times over, is simply wasteful. nuclear weapons receive over $10 billion while renewable energy receives a measly $986 million. i was talking to one of my constituents a little while ago, nancy from colorado, and she agreed that we simply spend too much on trying to destroy -- potentially have the capability to destroy the world through nuclear weapons. we don't live in cold wartimes,
we don't need cold war level spending for facilities the military hasn't used in years. we should be following the advice in this case on focusing on renewable energy account which helps funds labs like the one in golden. the most reyent study of the national renewable energy laboratory shows its impact alone is $208 million annually. there's also the renewable energy institute which helps advance renewable energy science, engineering and analysis. that's future of our country, mr. speaker, and the future of the world. and by undercutting our investment in our future and throwing money at the past and it being able to kill every man, woman, and child seven times instead of six times, we're losing the forest through the trees and making our country less secure, not more secure. the building technologies
officers in nral and many others receiving funds under this account do amazing work. like using 3-d printing for wing blades. not only that their work helps save consumers money because of energy efficiency. the work of the energy efficiency and renewable energy program has saved consumers more than $435 billion and reduced carbon pollution. i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. i'm not opposed to this, i actually like the program but we had to make difficult positions and that is maintaining our nuclear stockpile. secondly, it was making sure
that the army corps of depers was funded at the wrrda level that our colleagues insist on. we had to make difficult decisions within the department of energy. we did the best we could. when the gentleman says we aren't living in the cold war and don't need the weapons and facilities, you are right, it's scarier times than it was in the cold war and you never those facilities until you need those facilities. that's the problem. it's not looking forward. so i oppose this amendment because we have done our best within the weapons activities to make sure that we do what our nation requires and that is to make sure we have a safe, reliable ap secure stockpile and let the defense department come out with their review and what
they need as a weapons system all together when that review comes out. i oppose it also because it takes money out of the -- the arguments made by my friend from west virginia, because it takes money out of the fossil energy research. every time i asked the department of energy, what do you think the amount of energy we are going to consume over the xt 20 or 30 years comes from hydrocarbons, coal and natural gas is going to be in the future. it's a larger part. i think enral is a great lab. and want to make sure they stay open and do the job. but this amendment is directly in the wrong direction to go and i would yield to my the gentleman from west virginia the remainder of my time.
>> by my calculation this is the third or fourth amendment from the minority trying to take money out of a very important ture-looking initiative, the fossil energy r&d. they keep trying to raid this important funding. i'm sitting with my colleague from west virginia that there is no stronger champion. this is hundreds of jobs in our state, in his district, but the impact of their work reaches across the country and literally around the world. i spoke on a previous attack on this previous funding. i defend strongly the work of the fossil energy r&d and to suggest that this is just
looking to yesterday is talking about rare earth elements and unlocking the potential that these fossil resources have in so many ways not just energy production. thank you to the chairman of the subcommittee recognizing and fossil r&d who is a staunch supporter and my ability to work with him. i urge to reject. and i reserve. mr. polis: i thank the chair for recognizing the importance of the account. it is a high priority for economic development and we talked about the job and technology transfers that come out of that fund and his need for energy independence. i hope the chair is willing to work on finding other sources to plus it up.
i want to highlight other important projects. $500,000 and kes enormous difference to foster the colorado's plug-in electric vehicles. the clean cities' project developed a stratdepi including implementation. the project has saved 7.5 gallons of petroleum. these are the projects that we should be focused on. rather than expanding our nuclear arsenal, we can move towards cleaner air, cleeper water and more jobs and energy independence through clean renewable energy. that's why i ask you to support my amendment and decrease
funding for fossil fuel research and unnecessary and dangerous nukes that would destroy the world. i urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 42 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mckinley: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number number 42 printed in house
report 115-259 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: this amendment is simple merelyly restoring the fossil research and development program back to the levels of 2017. merely back to the level of 2017. but this is still a -- it is than it million less was under president bush. it's also put it in perspective. fossil fuels, the consumption of fossil fuels make up 81% of all the country's energy consumption. 81% of coal, natural gas and
oil. but the level of research is only at 18% of the money that we have currently. and i just heard a minute ago saying this is pretty balanced. i may be appear engineer, but i don't think 18% is equivalent of 81%. there is something wrong with that. i'm not here to argue that america shouldn't be investing in renewables and renewables. that wouldn't be appropriate. but the reality that america and the entire world would be relying on it. by 2040, the fossil energy is going to make up 78% of the world's consumption. so shouldn't it be america's goal to lead the world to have that leadership to develop the technologies that we can export
to other countries around the world that will continue to use coal and gas and oil in the cleanest and most efficient way? shouldn't we again be that global leader on this, but we can't do this without leadership. let's consider the history of this. fossil research from the federal government. just remember the threat years go back in the 1980's we had acid rain, it was the federal research that reduced the emissions of gases and cleaned up acid rain. the reduction of co-2 emissions have come as a result of fossil fuel research on a per capita basis today, we are now emitting on a per capita basis, this is the lowest level we have had in over 50 years thanks to fossil
fuel research. and made in america, the biggest producer of gas in the world, it originated in our federal aboratories in research. that is where we have been and now going to the future. someone said this is the fuel of the past, how can it be when the r&d money -- look at what they are working on in our labs, virtually in every one of our districts across this country, carbon capturing and storage and chemical looping and they are understanding methane hydrates and rare earths are being detected across america. what about oxy combustion, that is coming out of fresh research that well be able to export so other countries can burn their
coal more cleanly. congress should not be in the way of picking and winners and losers. if we are serious about reducing emissions, congress should put more money in this program, not reducing it. the funding level should be much higher. under president bush, it was $00 million more than it i is today. but i understand the fiscal constraints we have. let's utilize our domestic energy source and supply in the most efficient and clean way possible. and we do that through our research from our federal laboratories. i urge the house to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio. ms. kaptur: i rise to speak in
opposition to the amendment. i respect his amendment and his desire to help america and help his own state and for my entire career i voted for clean coal research and development because southern ohio has a lot of btu's underground in the form of coal. i object to the gentleman taking the funds from the energy efficiency and energy account. i would like you to know that that account is cut $986 million below last year's level and that is a deep concern because that's the part of our economy that is growing. 10% of the jobs now are in -- was produced in the energy sector are in renewables and we employ more people in solar and more people in wind energy than
we do in coal extraction. so we know that a major part of our future lies in new energy technologies, these developing technologies which have been proving themselves. an additional cut of $ 3. million would further weaken these new technologies and i would guarantee you that the technologies are so valuable that the russians and the chinese are hacking into these companies repeatedly because of eir importance to the future and they recognize where the future is headed. and we've got a real job on our hands to hold on to these technologies because of that and also because of their market manipulation. china is a market manipulator and state-run economy and it's not if they can't steal, if you
invest over there and they steal your i.t. there. just since 2003, our country has interest spent $2.6 trillion importing petroleum and when you think about america being energy independent at home, clean coal has a role but the new technologies have a role to play as well. nd we support the portfolio to eliminate our reliance on imported energy. some would say addiction to imported energy and we have breaking that addiction. we should clean up fossil energy. and this bill already does that with sufficient funding to the fossil energy account. our country should be leading not only for our energy security but for economic opportunities and the jobs that this expanding market is already providing us.
we can't afford to cede this market to any other country in the world. i oppose this amendment and i yield back. . . the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia for 30 seconds. >> we're not talking about west virginia. we're talking about all across the country, these laboratories are located in colleges, universities all across america. and coal is something that's expanding. our exports are up 58%. people around the world are going to use coal. i think it's the responsibility for us to show them how to burn it cleanly. mr. mckinley: china is going to increase their use by 43%. india's going to double its consumption in that same time frame. so when you compare the amount of research, only 18% currently of all the federal dollars for research are in fossil fuel. but 56% is renewable. that's not balanced. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
west virginia. 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 idaho rise? mr. simpson: i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question son the motion that the committee rise -- question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 3219 and directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3219 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the chair: the clerk -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report could to accompany house resolution 478. resolution providing for further consideration of the bill, h.r.
3219, making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2018, and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to house resolution 473 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 3219. will the gentleman from new york, mr. donovan, kindly resume the chair. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 43 259.ted in house report 115- for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. perry: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will
designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 43 printed in house report 115-259 offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to begin by thanking the chairman of the full committee for their extraordinary -- chairmen of the full committee for their extraordinary work and the chairmen of the subcommittee for this auspicious opportunity. i listened to the arguments recently that we've had on the floor regarding the most recent amendments between fossil fuels and renewables and i'm hoping to strike a sweet spot here. i'm not picking on the fossil fuels. and i'm going to talk about a renewable that i think everybody has an afinity for. and an agreement with. this amendment simply increases funding for hydroelectric through the eure by $15 million and decreases funding to the bureaucracy. so there's no increase to the budget. this amendment just increases
the appropriation for the office of energy and efficiency and renewable energy. because hydropower is available in every region of the country. 2,200 hydropower plants provide america's most abundant source of clean, renewable electricity. i would say the first renewable. it accounts for 67% of domestic renewable generation and clearly 7% of total electricity generation. by 2025, hydropower will create almost a million and a half new good, high-paying jobs. it can be implemented in rivers, harbors, coastal areas, etc., to capture energy from currents and tides. andujar necessarying this energy -- and harnessing this energy will create a truly and absolutely renewable and green source of energy without any emissions and with little fanfare to everybody involved. hydro is predictable. year-round, it's predictable year-round. while other renewable source
outputs can be variable in some areas. and necessitate the use of large battery banks and alternate power sources. for instance, sometimes when the wind doesn't blow, there's a, believe it or not, if you don't know it, there's a gas fire generator often associated with those wind mill farms that has to come on because base load isn't being serviced. hydropower facilities are quiet. unobtrusive. while many people report that considerable noise is generated by other -- by wind power and that land is taken up by huge solar farmses. hydropower is base -- farms. hydropower is base load energy. that means it's on all the time. 24 hours a day. 365 days a year. just sitting there, turning out the power so that you can hit the light switch when you come home and not wonder, is the power going to be on? it backs up other intermittent sources of energy. hydropower is safe. it harms neither fish nor man. and it all faces a comprehensive and regular regulatory approval
process. and with that, mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from oregon seek recognition? ms. bonamici: i claim time in opposition although i'm i'm not opposed to the amendment -- although i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. bonamici: first i want to thank chairman simpson and ranking member kaptur for their leadership in supporting the water technologies office. the water power technologies office invests in research and development that supports hydropower, pumped storage and marine energy. furthermore, i want to thank the chair and ranking member for including $30 million in the 2017 omnibus, for the creation of a wave energy test center. which is now located at oregon state university. this robust investment will help the united states lead in the field of marine hydrokinetic energy.
the increase this amendment proposeses will support hydropower and the development of innovative hydropower technologies. along with marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies. development of these new technologies can offer the united states leadership in an emerging area of abundant, renewable energy. marine and hydrokinetic energy, in particular energy from waves, currents and tides, is an exciting frontier in the renewable energy sector. currently oregon state university, university of washington, and the university of alaska-fairbanks are partnering to support the testing and research activities of the northwest national marine renewable energy center. this center will provide visionary entrepreneurs with a domestic location to test wave energy devices. along with other technologies. rather than traveling to scotland to use the european test center. without continued federal investment, europe will remain the leader in this important work. when fully developed, wave and
tidal energy systems could generate a significant amount of total energy used in the united states. as congress promotes technologies that can help lower our constituents' energy bills, we must explore new and innovative solutions like marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy. thank you again to the chairman and ranking member for their hard work and legislative leadership on this issue. and thank you to representative perry for his leadership. i urge support for this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry: thank you, mr. chairman. well, a lot of what we hear is that our constituents wish that we would work together more often. and i thank the gentlelady for her comments and her support. and i think it just proves positive that we can work together for something we agree on, which is clean power. the power to just power our future. and that comes from hydroelectricity. i don't know why. it's not as sexy as it should be. i think it's one of the greatest
marvels of technology, starting back since the beginning of time. and when power was first generated. i don't understand why we don't rely on it more. to that end, literally 60,000 megawatts of preliminary permits in projects await final approval and they're pending before ferc in 45 states right now. 80,000. 80,000 nonpowered dams in the united states, of which 600 have immediate hydrocapability. right now could be producing energy. 80,000 nonpowered dams in the united states. just think about that. the state i hail from, i'm privileged to represent a portion of, pennsylvania has 678 megawatts of untapped hydropower right now. mr. speaker, mr. chairman, i just urge all our colleagues to vote for this amendment. i again appreciate the chairman of the committee and of the subcommittee for this opportunity. and yield the balance.
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. bonamici: can i inquire the remaining time, please? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. ms. bonamici: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from maine, a strong supporter of hydropower, ms. pingree. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. pingree: thank you very much to my colleague from oregon for yielding your time. and i too want to rise in support today of the perry amendment. i thank my colleague from oregon and my colleague from pennsylvania for their leadership on this important renewable energy issue. i too also want to thank the chair of the subcommittee, mr. simpson, who i'm fortunate to also serve on the interior committee with. mr. simpson has worked hard on this bill. to increase some of the levels of funding above the abysmal levels that were proposed by the administration's budget earlier this year. and also to our ranking member, ms. kaptur, my friend from ohio, i thank her for her commitment to renewable energy and our energy future. the amendment before us today would provide a modest increase in funding to the department of energy's water power program. it is a bipartisan effort and i'm pleased to be part of that. it comes from the fact that many
parts of the country are seeking the real benefits of tidal energy that generates incredible power. or of hydrokinetic power that taps the power of flowing water. and in response to my colleague from pennsylvania in maine we think tidal energy is very sexy. the department of energy supports private sector research, development and implementation of hydropower pump storage and marine tidal energy. it supports cutting edge research and makes sure that the office supports all three types of water-based technologies. last year nearly 100 teams competed in a competition for energy department funded wave energy prize, with 20 finalists coming from 10 states. showing the breadth of the interest in this work. congress needs to support multifaceted work at a level that will continue to allow for innovation. i urge all my colleagues to support renewable energy, support water power, and support the perry amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman
yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized. ms. bonamici: thank you again, chairman. i strongly support this amendment and encourage all of you to do the same. as the sponsor of the amendment explained, this is not -- this does not take additional money, cuts down on bureaucracy, and puts the dollars into important work like marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy. i urge support and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 44 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from kentucky seek recognition? -- connecticut seek reck anything? -- recognition?
ms. esty: mr. speaker, i rise in support of my amendment. the chair: does the gentlewoman have an amendment at the desk? ms. esty: i do. the clerk: amendment number 44 printed in house report 115-259 offered by ms. esty of connecticut. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentlewoman from connecticut and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the entlewoman from connecticut. ms. esty: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of my amendment to increase funding for the advanced manufacturing office by $20 million. i want to thank my colleagues, representative tom reed, john katko and jacky rosen, for their partnership in this bipartisan amendment. our amendment is about protecting and creating millions of good paying jobs in connecticut and across the country. our amendment will help us our amendment will help us ensure the technologically advanced products will be
manufactured not in china, not in india but here in the united states of america. the department of energy's advanced manufacturing office is the only technology development office in the federal government that is dedicated to enhancing american manufacturing competitiveness. the advanced manufacturing office works to help manufacturers improve energy and material efficiency, technology and productivity. unfortunately, the appropriations bill before us today cuts funding to the advanced manufacturing office by $155.5 million from the fiscal year 2017 enacted levels and that is a mistake. manufacturing is one of the most important sectors of the u.s. economy. in 2016, manufacturing contributed $2.18 trillion to our economy. and employed 12.3 million workers. in my home state of connecticut,
manufacturing has long been our economic backbone. connecticut is home to nearly 5,000 manufacturing companies that provide good-paying jobs for 76,000 connecticut residents. and this amendment helps american manufacturers all across the country to be more competitive by reducing energy costs. manufacturing is very energy intensive. if tact -- in fact, according to the national association of manufacturers, manufacturers consume more than 30% of our nation's energy. that translates to $130 billion in costs to u.s. manufacturers every year. adequately funding the advanced manufacturing office will help reduce its energy cost to manufacturers, freeing up their budgets to invest in research and development, expand their facilities and most importantly hire more people. our amendment also helps american manufacturers become
more competitive by addressing critical work force needs in energy efficiency. last year, i visited forum plastics, a plastic folding company based in waterbury, connecticut, where i met with them to discuss challenges facing manufacturers in america today and one of the top exs was how businesses struggle to hire workers with the right skills. yet that same year, the company partnered with the advanced manufacturing office to carry out an industrial assessment project. the industrial assessment center program is a tool for employers to recruit individuals with hands on experience in energy efficiency. mr. speaker, now is not the time to roll back investments in american manufacturing. it is the this -- it is the time to increase you are support for u.s. manufacturing. i know, all of us in this chamber -- i know all of us in
this chamber are committed to creating good-paying jobs in the communities we represent. but it's not enough to say we're committed we need to make job creation a priority and that means making american manufacturing a priority. i urge my colleagues to support our amendment which increases funding to the department of energy's advanced manufacturing office by $20 million. fully paid for. by a reduction in the more than $350 million plus up to funding for the office of energy -- fossil energy research and development. this bipartisan amendment is a win for american manufacturing and a win for our economy. i urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves this chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: this is not a
$300-and something million plus up in the fossil energy research. i think fossil energy research account was down from last year. it was more than the president requested but it's not a plus up. from what it was in 2017. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. it would increase funding for by $20 wable energy million an uses $40 million from the fossil energy as an offset. this bill is a result of tough choices. they were tough choices. it's not that i potose -- oppose the program the good lady advocates for. but there were some tough choices we had to prioritize research and development, that will increase our energy independence. our domestic energy resources are vast and this bill strikes a balance to lay the foundations for future energy generation technologies while maintaining full support for the resources we use most today.
increasing funding for eere by diverting funding from fossil energy strikes the wrong balance when considering the nation's electricity needs, fossil fuels produce 65% of the electricity we use today and will continue to proid video -- provide the majority of the nation's energy needs in the future. this amendment would reduce funding for a program that ensures that we use our nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible and for all the reasons that team fossil talked about earlier tonight, i must oppose the amendment and urge my members to do the same. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from connecticut. >> may i ask how much time i have remaining? the chair: 30 seconds. >> if we can help our manufacturers be more efficient in their use of energy, we can help them hire more people and develop clean energy technology. thank you and i merge three -- i
merge colleagues to support this the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. esty: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentlewoman requests a recorded vote? ms. esty: i do. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from connecticut will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 46 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 49 printed in ouse report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk.
the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 49 printed in house report 115-259, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: in these difficult times i want to thank the chairman and ranking member, chairman simpson, ranking member kaptur of the subcommittee for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their efforts and the commitment we all have to preserving america's great natural environment and resources so we can serve -- so they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come. my amendment increases funding for the d.o.e.'s departmental administration by $1 million which should be used to enhance the department's environmental justice program activities. the environmental justice program is an essential tool in the efforts to improve the lives of low income and minority communities as well as the environment at large. 20 years ago this particular
program was established directing federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high adverse human health of their actions on minority and low income populations. so we have engaged with historically black colleges, minority-serving institution, tribal colleges and other organizations to improve and develop the sustainability through developing young people and faculty to work on these important issues. the crisis in flint, michigan, teaches us how important it is to minority groups and low income communities are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to environmental threats and hazards like lead in drinking water or nesting areas for mosquitoes carry agassi ka virus. i remember convene agassi ka task force in houston to ensure that areas in my community with sitting water a lot of heat, did not breed these mosquitos to create a devastating condition in some of our communities. this environmental justice program is extremely important
involving community education and advisory prnlts, community capacity building, community leaders institute and more importantly it works on important research. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment and reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does -- does anyone seek time in opposition? seeing none, the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: the -- i thank the gentleman. the important aspect of the research, i think is important as well. might i find out how much time i have? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i want to make note of the fact that in some of the universities in which this program is, the chair the faculty chairs, are a team of world class scholars, researchers and educators from 14 historically black colleges and universities. one hispanic serving institution, who advance research, enhance academics, promote partnerships and affect
outreach in the environmental sciences. the minority serving institutions program includes a wide array of institutions provides funding to minority-serving institutions to advance scientific research, student internships, faculty fellowships and click rum dwhofmente more we can invest in science and research, helping to improve our environment and i'll be clear , in urban and rural areas. this is not an urban program only, it is urban and rural area the more we can help our communities be clean and environmentally safe and secure, the more we create a better quality of life for all people no matter what their economic station in life or where they hi. so i ask my friend and colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 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.
it is now in order to consider amendment number 50 printed in house report number 115-259. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico seek recognition? ms. lujan grisham: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 50 printed in house report 115-259 offered by ms. michelle lujan gri sham of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentlewoman from new mexico, ms. lieu shan entry nam -- ms. lujan grisham and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new mexico. ms. lujan grisham: thank you, mr. chairman. amendment ensures that nnsa has adequate space to secure its mission. in my home state of new mexico only 1,000 federal employees and contract s -- contractors works in a network of old and rapidly
deteriorating facilities on the air force base in new mexico. a portion of the existing facility includes a 60-year-old former military bare racks which creates a number of health, safety and quality of life issues for its employees. these employees are involved in some of our nation's most important national security work, including manages our nation's nuclear deterrent and reducing global nuclear and radiological threat. the n.s.a. administrator, lieutenant general quan, said it's the highly -- that these highly talented mes are forced to work in facilities that are inadequate to nnsa's priorities. and because the of -- of the age of ethilled being; nnsa has to spend $6 million each year on repairing to keep them habitable. the $40 million worth of deferred maintenance alone is approximately one fifth of what it would cost to build a new
modern and reliable facility, so this is the perfect opportunity to save money in the long run. i strongly support nnsa's efforts to replace the existing complex with a single new building that will provide safe, reliable, and sustainable infrastructure that improves the safety and working environment for approximately 1,200 employees. the new state of the art facility will meet enhanced environmental standards and consolidate staff for more efficient delivery and support of the important national security work at nnsa. the current total project cost is $202 million and i agree with chairman simpson that we have an obligation to ensure that every single taxpayer dollar for this project is used efficiently and effectively. i know the chairman share misconcerns to ensure that nnsa has the infrastructure and resources it needs to fulfill its national security mission now and in the future. that's why i'm pleased that you
have agreed to work with me on this issue to ensure that we are fulfilling our oversight responsibilities while moving the construction of the albuquerque complex project forward. with that, i'm prepared to withdraw my amendment and i eserve the balance of my time. spoirp for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? without objection. mr. simpson: the committee has been supportive of this project and has provided $42 million in prior years. the bill includes an additional $18 million to ensure that the project moves forward and i'm happy to work with her as the project advances and understand this amendment will be withdrawn and i appreciate that. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new mexico. ms. lujan grisham: thank you, mr. chair. i appreciate the chairman's words and respect his work prior to this and in this current effort to get this space and facility and infrastructure
issues addressed. i look forward to working with you on a variety of ideas to make sure that we get this project completed in a timely and effective manner. i thank you and i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 51 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. foster: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 51 printed in house report 115-259 offered by mr. foster of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 432, the gentleman from -- 473rk the gentleman from illinois plrk foster, and -- 473, the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. foster: thank you, mr. chair. my amendment is a symbolic amendment to raise aware bns two
areas of emerging national security risk that i believe deserve more attention and investment. as the only ph.d. physicist in congress, i feel a special responsibility to speak out on issues of national security, especially when they concern emerging technological threats that congress may not be sufficiently aware of. any student of the history of warfare is well aware of the dangers of fighting the last war. for more than 70 years nuclear weapons have held center stage among threats to our national security. and global safety. because of their unique capabilities to threaten the existence of man kind. and that threat remains. but i fear that the balance of our defensive investments do not adequately reflect emerging threats. we now appear to be in the process of deciding to spend over $1 trillion to upgrade our nuclear weapons, despite the fact that our existing systems are far more than sufficient to deter any rational actor. there is no adversary of ours who is not intimidated by our nuclear arsenal but who will
suddenly fall in line if we add just one more upgrade or additional weapons manufacturing capability. put simply, another generation of nuclear weapons and weapons manufacturing will not make us significantly safer. on the other hand, we live in a world where newly emerging and potentially equally great threats loom. first, bioterror. driven by recent breakthroughses in genetic engineering and off the shelf biotechnology, and second, lethal autonomous weapons systems, driven by recent breakthroughs in machine vision, facial recognition and artificial intelligence. these are small, inexpensive lethal drones and similar devices that use machine vision and artificial intelligence to target individuals or groups of humans, potentially without any human involvement in the kill decision. for those of my colleagues unfamiliar with these technologies, a perform -- perform an internet search for lethal autonomous weapons systems, or read the recent press coverage of the horse pox
virus. a close variant of the smallpox virus that killed millions. then search for the term biohacking. for more detailed information, i urge my colleagues to request a classified or unclassified briefing on recent studies of these subjects by the national academies of science, evening in -- science, engineering and medicine. both of these technologies pose unique threats to our national security for two reasons. first, because of the small physical footprint of a terror facility based on either these technologies, either a bioterror laboratory or a small shop to produce and program small lethal drones could easily fit in a basement or small apartment. and there is no radiological signature to detect them as there is with nuclear material. secondly, because of the low cost and general availability of key enabling technological components, the monetary investment necessary for a capable terror facility is in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps
less. and the relevant technologies are already in wide use in industry. contrast this with the threats of nuclear prolive mation -- proliferation, a multibillion dollar investment pretty much limits nuclear weapons either to established nation states or perhaps to terrorist organizations with access to fissile material from poorly guarded facilities. anyone who is unconvinced that we need to take these emerging threats seriously needs only to look at what happened in cybersecurity. one of the painful lessons we've learned in recent years is that everything evil that can be done with computer viruses has in fact been done. in large part, this is because of the low barriers to entry and the difficulty of attributing an attack. both of those features are shared fully by both bioterror and lethal autonomous weapons systems. so if we're going stay ahead of these technological threats, we need to be strategic about our investments. it's time to reconsider the wisdom of pouring hundreds of
billions of dollars into cold ar weapons, which contribute negligentably to our national security, and past time to consider a much more rapid increase in investments in defensive measures against lethal autonomous weapons systems and against bioterror. because of the -- by the time that these become a reality, it will be too late to react. as a leader in technology and innovation, the united states should act now, to circumvent any danger these technologies could pose. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: claim time in opposition to the amendment although i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection. mr. simpson: i understand the gentleman's concern on this issue and appreciate the fact that he brought it up for discussion here tonight. i would note that the weapons activities accounts provides funding to ensure the reliability of our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. the in n -- nnsa does not use funds within this account to counter proliferation of biological weapons although i understand it is an important issue and i agree with him that
we need to address this issue. however this amendment increases and decreases the same account and has no effect on the bill overall so i will accept the gentleman's amendment. and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. foster: thank you, mr. chair. i appreciate that. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to take the time to educate themselves about these emerging threats. 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 illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 52 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 52 printed in house report 115-259
offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chair. i yield to myself such time as i might consume. i think we ought to be on a roll here. given the last amendment being accepted on a yes vote. this amendment would make america more secure by focusing our very limited tax dollars on programs to keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists, rather than excessive national laboratory infrastructure spending. according to "the washington post," the world dodge day dirty bomb, when isis failed to realize it had the ingredients for a dirty bomb under its control in mosul, for more than three years. this underscores the importance of the need for u.s. leadership and resources to secure nuclear
materials around the world. my amendment would provide an increase of $118 million for the national defense nuclear nonproliferation fund. the nn -- n.n.n. funding includes critical programs such as nuclear smuggling and detection program. works with partner country toims prove intelligence, law enforcement -- countries to improve intelligence, law enforcement to detect nuclear material trafficking. it also helps with radiological material around the world and remove it from areas where nuclear materials cannot be adequately and safely secured. the make america security act makes significant cuts in these programs, which keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. who would then use that material to do us harm. for example, there's a 30% cut from the nuclear smuggling detection fund. a 79% cut from the highly
enriched uranium reduction programs. and overall $150 million cut to this program. at the same time, the underlying egislation would increase by 38% a plus-up above what the administration recommended for the weapons activities infrastructure recapitalization budget line. this increase was not requested by the administration and is not supported by the senate. the underlying bill already includes a $59 million increase for infrastructure recapitalization spending, and a $71 million increase over the fiscal year 2017 enacted level for maintenance and repair of facilities. we can go on and on. we've heard discussions here already about the trillion-dollar-plus expansion of the nuclear weapons programs. specifically this money that i would move out of this particular infrastructure
recapitalization account is for the construction of a new facility to build nuclear plutonium pitts. these pitts are presumably going to be needed -- pits. these pits are presumably going to be needed for a weapon that almost certainly is not going to be built, which is the interoperable new bomb. the interoperable weapon is to on existing and remodeled rockets for the navy, and for the air force, neither of whom think it's a particularly good idea. and so that program, should it ever come to pass, could be delayed. and we can then use this $118 million now to deal with a known problem. if in the future we decide that we need to be able to produce somewhere between 30 and 80 new pits a year, there's time enough to do that. the account that calls for the maintenance of the existing
facilities will provide sufficient funds to meet all of the known needs, with the exception of the interoperable nuclear weapon, which in all probability is not ever going to be built or needed. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: claim time in opposition to the amendment. the clerk: without objection. mr. simpson: although i am opposed to the amendment, i have to admit that i do enjoy our annual discussion on this. i oppose this amendment because the bill already shows strong support for the nonproliferation programs of the nnsa. funding for nuclear defense nonproliferation is $1.83 billion. $76.5 million below fiscal year 2017 and $18 -- 16 -- or $16.8 million below the budget request. within nonproliferation, the bill largely supports funding as requested but makes a limited number of realignments to emphasize the importance of
nonproliferation research and development activities and to meet international commitments for plutonium disposition. our understanding, and this is the important point, our understanding is that the budget request is down because nnsa still has significant unexpended balances in this account due to slow progress on international nonproliferation agreements. specifically, the nnsa reported in may that it had approximately $2.2 billion in funds available to carry out its nonproliferation mission of which over $680 million is left over from prior years. for years, nnsa has struggled to execute funding in its nonproliferation budget, because it could not obtain agreement from other nations to do the work as quickly as planned or as we would maybe like to. this amendment also targets funding from the weapons activities infrastructure recapitalization program. created in fiscal year 2014 by congress, the recapitalization program has been highly successful in addressing the aging and deteriorating
infrastructure at nnsa sites. replacing things like telephone poles, leaking firemen valves and roofling, and addressing other basic infrastructure needs that are essential to the safe and continued operation of these nuclear security sites. the budget request proposed to cut the program and the bill and it increases funding $118 million above the request to restore that program to the fiscal year 2017 levels. we should not divert funding needed to address these urgent infrastructure needs and i would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: may i inquire as to the time available? the chair: two minutes. mr. garamendi: that might be sufficient. although i doubt that i will persuade the worthy chairman with whom we've had this little tussle back and forth. the fact of the matter is that there are two accounts to deal with this issue of the nuclear sites and the maintenance of --
one is a maintenance facility which is plused up and which is sufficient to maintain and upgrade the existing facilities, particularly the plutonium pit, the met lunch cal facility, as well as the -- continue the construction of the highly enriched uranium facilities. those are already available and that money is in those accounts. it turns out that this money for recapitalization is for the construction of a new facility, a new pit production facility, -- the nnsa claims it needs that facility to build additional pits beyond the 20 to 30 that could be constructed in the refurbished existing pit. the need for the new pit production facile city ty is specific by for the
productionle warhead facility. there's plenty of time to build the facility, to construction the nuclear plutonium pits. the bottom line, this money is not needed now for that facility. could the money be used in the nonproliferation? it could. why was the -- why were those agreements delayed? because many different reasons but the fact of the matter is, those agreements are going to be going forward. the fact of the matter is, here's a continuing problem of loose nukes and materials around the world which can cause a problem. the mosul situation but one of many examples of the cuts that do take place in smuggling, in research and the like, are serious. and we ought to be paying attention. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back my time and look forward to continuation of this discussion. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the
gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: this infrastructure need is not for a new facility. they would need to come to us and ask us what they were going to do with funding and request funding for that and they did not do that. this is for infrastructure needs and upgrades. your time has been used. i know you'd like to respond. but the other thing is, everybody wants to -- i'm as much a nonproliferation activist as anyone in this body. i think it's important work. but the reality is, there's $680 million unexpended from previous years not because funding is not available, the money is there. but they haven't been able to get agreements with other countries. unfortunately, you can't do work in other countries without having agreement with those countries. so consequently, we're, i guess you could maybe say overfunded in nonproliferation if we can't spend the money on that activity. that's the problem. why would we put the money into
that when we need the money in infrastructure in building and repairing the facilities that the nnsa has? it doesn't make sense to mele but i'm sure if this amendment is defeated, which i hope it is, we'll have this discussion again next year. i hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. garamendi: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? yes. ramendi: the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceeding on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now inrder to consider amendment number 53 printed in house report 115-259.
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? ms. rosen: i have an amendment at the kesk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 53 printed in house report 115-259 offered by ms. rosen of nevada. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 437 -- 473, the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. rosen, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from nevada. ms. rosen: mr. chairman, i rise in support of my amendment to strip funding for defense nuclear west disposal and return this money to the treasury in order to reduce the deficit. the $30 million allocated under the appropriation bill being considered here tonight has the potential to be used to expand yucca mountain so it can be used to store defense waste in addition to civilian nuclear waste. if there's one issue the majority of nevadans agree on, it's that we whole heartedly oppose becoming the nation's
dumping ground for nuclear waste. in 1987, congress amended the nuclear waste policy act and targeted yucca mountain, located less than 100 miles northwest of las vegas, as the sole site for our nation's geologic repository. it's a fancy way of choosing nevada as their nuclear dump. for over 30 year the state of nevada and local communities have rejected this misguided project on safety, public health and environmental grounds and in fact we have filed 218 contentions against the department of energy's license application, citing safety and environmental issues in its assessments. numerous scientific studies deemed yucca mountain unsafe based on the fact that it sitz above an aquifer, it's seismically active and the area just experienced a 4.1 magnitude earthquake. any plans involving yuke ka mountain, including the nuclear waste policy amendments act or
any proposed plans to co-mingle the defense and civilian nuclear waste and yucca ignore the environmental, safety and security concerns of nevadans who would be forced to store nuclear waste they had no role in creating. using yucca mountain as the nation's dumping ground would require transporting over 70,000 metric tons of radioact i waste, much of of -- much of it through my district, through the heart of las vegas, a city that attracts $4 million visitors annually and generates $59 billion in revenue. not only tchuzz project endanger those in nevada, mr. chairman, it also threatens the health and safety of millions of americans from over 325 congressional districts across this country who live along the proposed transportation route. if this wasn't bad enough, now the nation's most egregious nuclear west producers and even some of my colleagues across the
aisle are suggesting we co-mingle defense waste with civilian waste from power plant, inappropriately increasing the amount of high level radioactive material dumped in nevada by over 35%. this means more nuclear material coming to yucca and more waste traveling thru 44 states and washington, d.c. there are also concerns that this will hinder the air force's readiness and our country's ability to defend itself. last week, the las vegas review journal ran a story featuring heather wilson, secretary of the air force, and her concerns with the yucca mountain project. she cited how it will directly impact the air force base's facility to complete its missions to train service members for war because there's no route across the range that would not impact testing and training. her concerns unfortunately are not new. since 2003, the air force has consistently stated they know that no route through the nevada test and training range that
would avoid sensitive areas are not negatively impact readiness activities. i understand that our nuclear -- our country's nuclear waste must go somewhere but this decades-old battle has proven yucca is not the place. we must stop wasting billions of taxpayer dollars by resurrecting a project that's been dead for over 30 years and instead identify viable alternatives for the long-term repository in areas that are proven safe and whose communities consent to storage. mr. chairman, i am prepared to withdraw my amendment with the understanding that we will begin a serious discussion on thousand to properly handle our country's waste instead of continuing down the path of forcing this waste on my state. i fully understand we have to put our country's defense and civilian waste somewhere. but for the first time, let's bring nevadans to the table, let's share the responsibility of facing the consequences of nuclear production.
thank you and i ask for unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn. the chair: the gentlewoman's dethe gentlewoman's amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 54. it is now in order to consider amendment number 54 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine seek recognition? ms. pingree: i rise in support of the pingree-carbajal- bonamici-langevin-lowenthal-cici lline-schneider amendment. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 54
printed in house report 115-259, offered by ms. pingree of maine. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentlewoman from maine, ms. pingree and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maine. i rise in support of this amendment which is widely supported. all the co-spon or -- co-sponsors of the amendment care passionately about the need for ocean planning and i commend the leadership of my colleagues on this issue each and every year that we fight for this battle for sensible ocean policy. we need as a congress to recognize the importance of our oceans and ocean planning. ocean planning works and is working already in new england where we have a success story of fishermen, lobstermen, native american tribes, local communities and other stake holders developing voluntary regional ocean plans. i've heard from many of my constituents working in maine's island communities about the
importance not only of ocean planning but of ecobased management of our oceans. a core part of moving forward to a 21st century fishery. our fisheries changing and coastal communities want to be attentive to changes in our ecosystem, resource development and other uses for our oceans. for example, our plan in new england ensures that there's advanced ecological data and it's available to help decisionmakers, it enhances ocean stake holder engagement through collection of stake holder drive information and it facilitates agency coordination. the language in today's underlying bill would make it even more difficult for federal agencies, state and local communities to work together on the future of our ocean resources. for those of us representing coastal districts this rider is a bad addition to the bill and we need to strike it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. does anyone seek time in opposition? for what purpose does the
gentleman rise? mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the clerk: without objection. mr. simpson: i reserve. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: thank you mr. chairman. yield one minute to the -- to mr. schneider. mr. schneider: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. schneider: i rise today in strong support and as a proud co-sponsor othis -- to this amendment. i do so in defense of one of our most mag nive sent natural resources, the tpwhrakes. they contain a fifth of the world's and 95% of our nation's surface water. the lakes are an important asset to our economy and quality of life of our nation and my district in particular. the national ocean policy also help prospect the vitality of our great lakes ecosystem. however, section 505 of this bill will undermine our national ocean policy and the ability of agencies to coordinate with states lock call governments and other agencies to protect these
beautiful waters. that's why i support striking section 505. we have a profound obligation to be responsible stewards of the environment and to pass on a clean, healthy, and dynamic environment for future generations. i support the pingree amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from minute. ms. pingree: i reserve. the chair: the chair recognizes he gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i rise in opposition to this amendment. while there may be instances and i'm sure there are in which greater coordination would be helpful in ensuring our ocean and coastal resources are available for future generations, any such coordination must be done carefully to protect against federal overreach. as we saw with the obama admrgs' wotus rule to redefine watt orse they have united states, thorough, strong -- thorough and strong congressional oversight is needed to ensure we protect private property rights. unfortunately, the way the obama administration developed the
national ocean policy increased the opportunities for federal overreach. the implementation plan is so broad and so sweeping that it may allow the federal government to affect agriculture practices, mining and anyone else whose actions may have an impact on the oceans. the fact is the previous administration did not work with congress. did not work with congress. this is their national ocean policy. they never brought it to congress. if you're going to do something this sweeping you need to have congressional input. they never came to congress to develop its plan and have even refused to provide relevant information to congress, we can't be sure how sweeping it actually could be if left unchecked. that's why i support the language they have underlying bill and therefore oppose this amendment. but i understand their concern. but why not bring it to congress? why not have congress enact the national ocean policy instead of ju