Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House Debates Minibus Spending Bill  CSPAN  July 26, 2017 9:59pm-12:00am EDT

9:59 pm
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 just relying on the executive
10:00 pm
branch to do whatever they want to do? that's the problem the resources committee has with this. the problem i have with this. that's why i oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you very much, mr. chairman. if my good colleague could guarantee he could get me votes on the floor i'd be happy to bring a bill like that to congress. right now i yield a minute of my time to my colleague from california mr. -- lowenthal. yes, mr. lowenthal. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. chairman. my district is a poster child for the need for the need for ocean coordination and information sharing. in my district we have the busiest port complex in north america. we have offshore drilling. we have san clemente island, a naval training ground where they have ship-to-shore firing range. we have abundant wildlife in the
10:01 pm
district. on top of that, sea level rise and extreme weather threatens neighborhoods and businesses all the along the coast of my district. with so much activity happening, it simply makes sense to have the various stakeholders at the table. to make sure ships come in and out of ports safely, to ensure that our thriving economy stays thriving, and to give mill -- the military space to train. we want these collaborations to happen because we want to have a sustainable ocean economy. and by developing regional plans and having a framework for multistakeholder involvement, we can promote a robust ocean economy that also conserves our precious ocean resources. the country and my district need as comprehensive approach to our ocean resources, which the national ocean policy provides. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time.
10:02 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree:ky chair tell me huche to imi have -- ms. pingree: can the chair tell me how much time i have available? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes. ms. pingree: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: it's kind of interesting that -- i don't disagree with anything that you're saying. the problem is, there's a process and congress needs to be involved. the last administration did not involve congress. i know. if at good policy, why don't we just let the administration do it? if you can't get the votes on floor, doesn't that tell you something? maybe you need to go and work this out and bring the policy to the floor. but if we're just going to let the administration do, that i don't know, maybe -- do that, i don't know, maybe we'll just let this administration enact a tax policy because we have a tough time doing it here in congress. i don't know, maybe we'll let him enact a health care policy, because we can't get together on the floor to see what to do about our health care system. let's just let the administration do it all. that's exactly what you're doing
10:03 pm
with this. you bring a national ocean policy to the floor, if i think it's a good bill and necessary, i will vote for it. i can't tell you what i will vote for yet, because i haven't seen it. but just because congress hasn't acted doesn't give the administrative branch of government the right to interject itself and take on the legislative branch of government's responsibilities. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: thank you very much, mr. chair. with all due respect to the chair, i think there are frequently moments when the administration overrides the opinion of the congress or don't always agree and the administration get their way. take the decision the administration made this morning on military policy, which was contrary to the vote that we took just this week on the appropriations process. but right now i'd like to yield a minute of my time to mr. carbajal from california. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman is recognized. mr. carbajal: mr. chair, i want to thank all my colleagues for
10:04 pm
their leadership and work on this important amendment to strike this harmful rider, to prevent implementation of the national ocean policy. the national ocean policy ensures we are able to implement marine planning efforts based on management components of the national ocean policy. it also allows coordination between federal agencies, to make sure they are working in a collaborative manner to improve our oceans' health. this bring all stakeholders together, including conservationists, fishermen, scientists, shipping companies, and those who live and work in our ocean communities. and it will allow them to have a voice in finding solutions for effective management of our oceans. healthy, sustainable ecosystems and economic growth are not mutually exclusive. that is why we need to make sure we strike this harmful rider.
10:05 pm
i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the time is expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i would just say, the usurpation by thed a stra -- by the administrative branch over congress happens with both republican and democratic administrations. i remember someone standing up and saying, well, if congress won't do it, i have a pen and a phone. this is congress surrendering our responsibility. and even though you might like the outcome of what they do, it is the wrong thing to do. and congress needs to stand up at times and take back our responsibility and just saying, well, i don't really like the way it was done, but i like the policy, so i'll just support it. and that's what we're doing here. that's the problem with the national ocean policy. again, i would encourage the supporters of this, and who knows, i might be one of them,
10:06 pm
to bring it to congress. let's debate it. let's have a good healthy debate on this floor. go through the committee process. go through the regular order. and then it's something that we might be able to support in the appropriations process. other than that, i would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment -- ms. pingree: mr. chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: mr. chair, i rise as the designee of ranking member lowey to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: yes. i rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment to support the growth of vibrant coastal economies and creation of fisheries and agriculture -- aqua culture jobs. the national ocean policy is helping agencies and states collaborate to reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and one can just take a look that the ocean policy
10:07 pm
supports almost two million fisheries-related jobs in our country, and $5.3 billion in commerce fish landings, as well as enhanced tourism and doesn't cost the national ocean policy -- the national ocean policy doesn't cost us anything. just want to remind people that our country currently imports 91% of consumed seafood, with half coming from foreign aquacultures. this policy is extraordinarily important and i would like to yield time to our dear colleague, congressman cicilline. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise today to speak in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague, congresswoman pingree, which would strike the harmful provision that undermines the importance of the national ocean policy. for over seven years, the national ocean policy has helped guide ocean management through spurring coordination among government agencies. ocean planning and coordination is an important aspect in supporting economic growth, protecting coastal habitats, and strengthening coastal communities.
10:08 pm
the national ocean policy does not create any regulations, supersede current regulations, or to modify any agencies' established mission, jurisdiction or authority. rather, it helps coordinate the implementation of existing regulations by federal agencies to establish a more efficient and effective decision making process. throughout the northeast, the regional ocean council allows our states to pool resources, businesses to have a strong voice and decisions that will impact their communities and facilities coordination with federal partners. i'm proud to say that the northeast regional ocean council is the first in the nation to release a draft regional ocean plan. my home state of rhode island, the ocean state, has benefited greatly from the national ocean policy. with help from the block island wind farm project was successfully completed and today is capable of powering an estimated 17,000 homes. at a time when our oceans are facing significant challenges and changes, maintaining coordination and planning is necessary in continuing to strengthen our country's coastal communities and ocean
10:09 pm
industries. allowing federal agencies to coordinate implementation of over 100 ocean laws and giving state and local governments a voice in the ocean planning process is smart public policy and urge my colleagues to support this amendment and strike this ill-advised provision. i thank the gentlelady, i yield back. ms. kaptur: i thank you for yielding back the time. may i ask of the chair the time remaining? the chair: the gentlelady has 2 1/2 minutes. ms. kaptur: 2 1/2. i would like to yield 2 1/2 inutes to the gentleman from the east coast, congressman jim langevin. the chair: the gentlelady is not allowed to yield blocks of time. ms. kaptur: oh, excuse me, i'm sorry. i would just yield. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. ms. kaptur: yield to him. mr. langevin: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. chairman, the establishment of a national ocean policy was a landmark step for our country. i particularly want to commend the senator from rhode island for his leadership on this issue. ocean planning just makes sense. as we've seen in rhode island,
10:10 pm
during implementation of our special area management plan. instead of haphazard policymaking or turning the ocean into a political football, we brought all stakeholders to the table, commercial and recreational fishermen, energy development companies, conservationists, and other local interests. the national ocean policy builds on this type of collaboration. it's a bottom-up approach and it empowers local communities who use our oceans. i want to echo the words also of my colleague, congressman cicilline from rhode island. in support of this amendment. and i urge my colleagues to allow this forward-thinking approach to continue. i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. kaptur: thank you so much for coming to the floor tonight. i want to thank all of our colleagues who have spoken so eloquently on the importance of national ocean policy and supporting the pingree ettal amendment. 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 gentlewoman from
10:11 pm
maine. 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. pingree: mr. chair, i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentlelady request a recorded vote? ms. pingree:y i ye i do, thank you. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from maine will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 55 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition?
10:12 pm
mr. kihuen: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 55 printed in house report 115-259 offered by mr. kihuen of nevada. the chair: purr subte to house resolution -- pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentleman from nevada and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada. mr. kihuen: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment strikes language in the bill that would prohibit the closure of the yucca mountain project, which includes the storage of high level nuclear waste in high district -- in my district. as you may know, in 1987, nevada was targeted as our nation's nuclear waste dump through the screw north dakota bill. in the 30 years since the -- screw nevada bill. in the 30 years since the bills passed, congress has wasted $3.7 billion, $3.7 billion of
10:13 pm
taxpayer money. yucca mountain sits in a seismically active area less than 100 miles away from las vegas. which holds an urban area with over two million residents. mr. chairman, just last week there was an earthquake, 33 miles away from yucca mountain. this place is not safe for our nuclear waste. moreover, the city sees tens of thousands of visitors traveling to las vegas each and every year. many of whom are your constituents from your districts . in 2016 alone, over 40 million visitors traveled to las vegas. i have grave concerns with the transportation of nuclear waste through yucca -- to yucca mountain. should this project continue against the will of my constituents, this project will not just impact my constituents,
10:14 pm
it impacts constituents in 329 congressional districts in 44 different states and washington, d.c. putting nuclear repository in our backyard means that this high level nuclear waste must travel through your backyards first. your constituents will need to see high level nuclear waste transported through their communities on rail and truck. a simple car crash or train derailment would leave your constituents at risk and cost our taxpayers more money to clean up the mess. as it stands, mr. chairman, this transportation plan also damages our national security and the ability of the nevada test and training range, the largest air and ground range in the united states, to meet and train our service members.
10:15 pm
mr. chairman, i have been to yucca mountain. i have driven through the desert that is home to the big horn and and desert tortoise, ancient petroglyphs. it is clear that reopening yuga mountain threatens the health -- yucca mountain threatens the health and safety of nevadans and americans from across the country. our states, -- our state, which has no nuclear energy producing facilities, should not be the dumping ground for the rest of the country's nuclear waste. and bottom line is this, if any would support this bill to bring yucca mountain nuclear waste to our state, then i'm sure you supported bringing it to your state. . i'm sure we can find a location in your state, and i'll work with you on that i'm sure you don't want your neighbors
10:16 pm
bringing your trash -- bringing their trash to your backyard. i don't either. don't bring it to nevada. i urge support for my amendment and prevent billions and billions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, to be wasted by continuing to pursue the yucca mountain project. thank you, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek time? mr. simpson: i would tell the gentleman, they have brought a lot of nuclear waste in idaho. rocky flats, that they said got cleaned up, it wasn't cleaned up, it was moved to idaho. that's what happens. i rise to oppose this amendment. i think we all understand why my colleagues from nevada oppose yucca mountain they position on yucca mountain. however i cannot support this amendment. it is time to move forward with the yucca licensing process. the previous administration ignored the law.
10:17 pm
i repeat that. ignored the law. ignoring our obligation to take responsibility for this spent fuel and breaking trust with 3 states stopped this process in its track. i don't think i have to say why that happened. it wasn't because of science or anything else. we all know why they stopped the licensing process at yucca mountain. the decision is already -- has already cost taxpayers $6 billion in claims and the department of energy estimates at least another $24 billion in claims. this administration has taken swift action to put us back on track and the budget request proposed in this bill includes $150 million for yucca licensing efforts. licensing efforts that will continue to involve experts in geochemistry, hydrology, geology, seismology and more to ensure that yucca mountain, already one of the most studied pieces of land on earth, i would say the most studied piece of
10:18 pm
land on earth, 52 or 53 national academy of science studies have been done. but it will get a careful review from all aspects of its license applications. once that application is finished, all member os of this body and the senate will have an opportunity to decide whether we move forward to construct and use the facility but killing the process at this point is shortsighted. and therefore i oppose the amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized. r. lie hewn: i yield the -- mr. chi hewn: i yield the -- mr. kihuen: i yield the remainder of my time to my colleague. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i want to make one thing perfectly clear. nevadans are completely against becoming the nation's nuclear dumping ground. and make no mistake that's exactly what this appropriations bill does.
10:19 pm
without mr. kihuen's amendment, which i'm proud to co-sponsor, congress will tie the hands of this administration by expressly prohibiting or even considering closing yucca mountain before licensing activities begin. the underlying bill forebids any funds from being used to conduct activities that preclude yuke ka -- yucca mountain from becoming the nation's dumping ground for nuclear waste new york matter the science, no matter the evidence. we already have the evidence that bringing america's nuclear waste to yucca is bad for nevadans and bad for americans. we know that yucca is unsafe for nuclear waste waste because it aquifer.e an act with tons of radioactive waste through las vegas and through my district and those visitors from across the country and the world
10:20 pm
will be exposed. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time from nevada is ex-p pyred. the gentleman from idaho is ecognized. mr. simpson: yucca mountain is the waste repository for high level nuclear waste. all we ask is to continue the licensing process. congress will have a chance to proceed with -- to vote on whether we proceed. but we have to start handling this nuclear waste or it will cost us billions an billions and billions more. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed.
10:21 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 56 printed in house 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 56 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 wetch will -- each will control five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman, i'm going to take this opportunity to show this picture to my deleengs floor of the house and the headline that says urban flooding in houston is on the rise. it clearly just used the city of houston by coincidence but i will tell you that this is what we're facing really as across america. and the opening sentence of the article says, before you can fix
10:22 pm
a problem, you need to know what's causing it. my amendment is just that. my amendment, as i thank chairman simpson and ranking member kaptur for their work on this legislation and doing the best that we can under the circumstances of trying to preserve the balance, my amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the u.s. army corps of engineers investigations account, redirecting $3 million for post-disaster watershed assessment studies like the one that's been contemplated in many areas around the country. as the federal agency that collects and studies basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, ecosystem restoration and conducts detailed studies, plans and specifications for river and harbor and flood and storm damage reduction, the u.s. army corps of engineers plays a critical role in the building, maintaining, expanding the most
10:23 pm
critical in the nation's infrastructure. when questioning the army corps of engineer about a certain air inny -- area in my community covers a number of bayou, which we're called the bayou city, hunter bayou, clear creek buy yaw, it is the same all over the nation. the army corps of engineers said they need to study the issue to know how to solve it. my amendment is resources to be directed to be sure we're allowed to study issues so we can focus the dollars correctly as we attempt to work collaboratively with local communs. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i make this point. such a study is certainly needed given the frequency and severity of historic level flood events in many parts around our nation and in the area in which i live. on april 15, 2016, an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in the houston area over a 12-hour period. this is not an earmark. it simply says we should have
10:24 pm
the resources to study these issues so that we can direct moneys in the right way. i reserve my time and ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. laim time in opposition? seeing none, the gentlewoman from texas is reneck -- is recognized. ms. jackson lee: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentlelady has 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me conclude my remarks by indicating, i believe this particular amendment will be helpful in general to in essence provide funding for the u.s. army corps of engineers investigations account and ensuring that post disaster assessment can result. i want to thank ms. kaptur in particular, we have spoken about this for probably over a two-year period and i think the very fact that my particular area can be cited as an example of what happens when you have
10:25 pm
urban flooding is just an example. over this past summer we know we've had some serious loss of life when rivers have flover flown or areas where water is, people have been reck creating and waters have overflown. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment and with that, 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 noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. ms. jackson lee: may i have at this time i'd like to have a record vote. the chair: 3ur sunt to clause -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by -- further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed.
10:26 pm
under clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 115-259 in the following order. amendment number 4 by mr. perry of pennsylvania, amendment number five by mr. griffith of pennsylvania, amendment number 23 by mr. king of iowa. amendment number 38 by mr. castor of florida, amendment number 39 by mr. norcross of new jersey, amendment number 44 by ms. esty of connecticut, amendment number 52 by mr. grare men dee of california, amendment number 56 by ms. sheila jackson lee of texas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on
10:27 pm
the amendment offered by mr. perry on which further proceedings wrg post-owned on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 115-259 offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the cbo says the various
10:28 pm
republican health care law revision plans would knock millions of people off of health insurance. so there has been an amendment by the pennsylvania republican to cut funds in half. mr. perry says the same percent cbo was off in enrollment numbers. let's show you this from earlier today.
10:29 pm
10:30 pm
10:31 pm
. .
10:32 pm
10:33 pm
10:34 pm
10:35 pm
10:36 pm
10:37 pm
10:38 pm
10:39 pm
10:40 pm
10:41 pm
10:42 pm
10:43 pm
10:44 pm
10:45 pm
10:46 pm
10:47 pm
10:48 pm
10:49 pm
the chair: on this vote, the 107,are 107 therge nays -- the nays are 314 this amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith, on this plo -- on which proceedings were postponed. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 115-259. oured by mr. griffith of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is
10:50 pm
ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
10:51 pm
10:52 pm
10:53 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 116, the nays are 306.
10:54 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 116, the nays are 309, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished bids is the request for a recorded vote on earment number 7 printed in house report 115-259 offered by the gentleman from california, mr. takano, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 115-259. offered by mr. takano of california. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested those in support of the request for a
10:55 pm
recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. all members are reminded we are in a two-minute vote series. please stay close to the floor. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
10:56 pm
10:57 pm
10:58 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 191, the nays are 236, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 23 printed to in house report 115-249 on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in house report -- house report 115-259, offered by mr. king of yea iowa. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted.
10:59 pm
a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
11:00 pm
11:01 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 178, the nays are 249. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 38 printed in house report 115-259 by the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor, on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. . the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in house report 115-259 offered by ms. castor of florida. the chair: a recorded vote vk been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. members, this is a two-minute vote.
11:02 pm
[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
11:03 pm
11:04 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 181, the nays are 246. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 39 printed in house report 115-259 by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. norcross, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevail d by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. cloim amendment number 39 fingerprinted had -- the clerk: amendment number 39 printed in house report 11457b259 offered by mr. norcross of new jersey.
11:05 pm
the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. members, this is a two-minute involvement -- vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
11:06 pm
11:07 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 186, the nays are 241. the amendment is not adopted qufment request amendment number 44 printed in house report 115-259 by the gentlewoman from connecticut on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice
11:08 pm
vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 44 printed in house report 115-259 offered by ms. esty of connecticut. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
11:09 pm
11:10 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 203, the nays are 224. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 52 printed in house report 115-259 by the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 52 printed in house report 115-259
11:11 pm
offered about by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: a recorded d vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
11:12 pm
11:13 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 180, the nays are 247. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 54 printed in house report 115-259 by the gentlewoman from maine, ms. pingree, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 54 printed in house report 115-259 offered by ms. pingree of maine. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a
11:14 pm
recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
11:15 pm
11:16 pm
the chair: ton -- on this vote, the yeas are 192, the nays are 235, the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed, which noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 56 printed in house report 115-259 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having
11:17 pm
risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
11:18 pm
11:19 pm
11:20 pm
11:21 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 234, the nays are 192. he amendment is adopted.
11:22 pm
the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 57 printed in -- the house will be in order.
11:23 pm
the house will be in order. members please take your conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 57 printed in house 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 57 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: i thank the chairman. the chair: the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i again thank
11:24 pm
the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, again, for this very critical work. my amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the u.s. army corps of engineers construction account by redirecting $100 million for increased funding for critical construction projects like those projects that are current and future projects throughout the nation. as the federal agency that collects and studies basic river,tion pertaining to harbor flood damage it's important that the army corps of engineers have the funding to focus its resources around the nation again. the u.s. army corps of engineer plays a critical role in the build, maintaining and expand og of this emost critical of the in addition's infrastructure. the energy and water subcommittee has an important responsibility. and it is to ensure the safety o-- safety of the nation's waterways.
11:25 pm
ome of them are -- the chair: the commow committee will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. he committee will be in order. the gentlewoman is now recognized. ms. jackson lee: some of these waterways are in and around many of our states. particularly in the state of texas, not only do we have a concept of bayous but, for example, we are surrounded in many parts by the gulf. we have an enormous amount of water in rivers. and we army corps of engineers is particularly important as it relates to flooding. but we have seen flooding across america. so this particular amendment is to ensure that resources are there as americans face unusual flooding that is occurring over the last decades. i will give you an example.
11:26 pm
during may, 2015, in the houston flood, 3,015 homes were flooded and eight persons died. during the april o, 2016, houston floods. 5,486 home were flooded. the damage caused by the flood is estimated at $ billion. i ask my colleagues that this amendment is not for a region or an area. it really is to help the nation. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. does anyone seek to rise in opposition? the gentlewoman from texas is now recognized. ms. jackson lee: i'd like to conclude by thanking the committee and staff and again reminding individuals that we can save lives through the work of the army corps of engineers and stopping the flooding that impacts not only my region of the country but really across the country.
11:27 pm
i conclude again with one final statement. we in our community are entering hurricane season. this will be a very important amendment as we enter hurricane season all over the nation. with that, i ask support for the jackson lee amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the squone the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, [no audio] on the -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 58 offered by the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 115-259, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from texas.
11:28 pm
ms. jackson lee: i thank you my amendment is a simple amendment that promotes stem education, which is really a vital part of the future of this nation, in particular, my amendment says none of the funds made available by this act for department of energy programs science may be used in contravention of the department of energy organization act this amendment was aproved and adopted in the last session. 20 years ago, on february 11, we were directed to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impact -- effects of actions on minority and low-income population. the department of energy seeks to provide equal access in these opportunities for underrepresented groups in stem including minorities, nate i americans and women. mr. chairman, women and minorities make up 70% of college students but only 45% of undergraduate stem degree holders. this large pool of untapped tall sent a great source of stem professional bus it deprives the
11:29 pm
united states of its best minds to be able to help it in the 21st century. as the nation's demographics are shifting and more children under the age of 1 are minorities, it is critical we close the gap in a number of minorities who seek stem opportunities. mr. chairman, there is still a great many scientific riddles yet to be solve and perhaps one of these days, minority engineers and biologists will come up with these solutions as many have done in the past. the largers point is that we need more stem educator and more minorities to qualify them. my amendment turns our attention to the importance of energy and science education programs funned in part by this bill and will help ensure that members of underrepresented communities are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to environmental sustainability, preservation and health. with that, i reserve and ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. is there anyone what rises in opposition? the gentlewoman from texas is now recognized.
11:30 pm
ms. jackson lee: thank you. mr. chairman, in closing, let me take note of some of the colleagues i have had the privilege of being neighbors to. nay is a -- nasa johnson is one of the neighbors in my community. may jimmerson is any neighbor, the first african-american woman who went into space. i want more of those individuals coming from our nation's schools. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment that will encourage those in low income communities, minorities, native americans and others to join in and support the opportunities for stem education. with that, i yield back asking for the support of the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman to from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider
11:31 pm
amendment number 59 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have an amendment at the desk, gosar number 59. the chair: the clerk will redesignate the amendment. . the clerk: amendment number 59 fingerprinted in rouse report 115 had been -- printed in house report 115--- the chair: the gentleman from arizona and aman opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer a commonsense amendment that will protect american jobs in our economy. by prohibiting funds from being used to implement the obama administration's flawed social st of carbon or s.c.c. evaluation. it sneakly attempts to pave the way for cap and trade-like mandates. congress and the american people have repeatedly rejected cap and trade proposals. knowing that he could not fully enact a carbon tax plan, president obama attempted to circumvent congress by playing loose and fast with the clean air act, to unilaterally
11:32 pm
implement this unlawful new requirement under the guise of guidance. the obama administration continually used the s.e.c. valuation models which can be easily manipulated. although president trump issued an executive order in march to disband the interagency working group on social cost of greenhouse gases, federal agencies continue to work on the s.e.c. valuation. my amendment is necessary to strengthen the intent of president trump's executive order, while also ensuring that it is congress, not the executive branch, which sets tax and environmental policy. the committee wisely issued guidance in the bill report to delay the promulgation of the s.c.c. regulation, until a new working group is convened. my amendment explicitly prohibits funds from being used to implement the deeply flawed social cost of carbon guidance in the bill text. the house has a clear, consistent and strong record of opposition to the social cost of carbon. my colleagues voted in favor of my amendment in f.y. 2017
11:33 pm
appropriations by a clear majority of 230-188. in fact, the house has decisively voted 10 times to block the fund or oppose the social cost of carbon since 2013. my amendment ensureses this chamber's position remains consistent and crystal clear in f.y. 2018. a self-described life long environmentalist and career environmental attorney testified at the may, 2015, house natural resources committee hearing on in evised s.c.c. guidance the flaws associated with the social cost of carbon model stating that the social cost of carbon estimates suffer from a number of significant flaws that should exclude them from the nepa process. among these flaws are, one, that the projected cost of carbon emissions can be manipulated by changing key parameters such as time frames, discount rates and other values that have no relation to a given project undergoing review. two, o.m.b. and other federal
11:34 pm
agencies develop a draft of social cost of carbon estimates without any known peer review or opportunity for public comment during the developmental process. three, o.m.b.'s draft social cost of carbon estimates are based primarily on global rather than domestic costs and benefits. four, there are still considerable uncertainties and many assumptions in data elements in estimates such as the damage functions and model time horizons. the testimony was spot-on. congress, not washington bureaucrats, should dictate our country's climate change policy. the sweeping and costly changes of the social cost of carbon metric would impose are not only misguided and unwise, they're also based on fundamentally flawed policies and side stepping congress, did not go through the normal regulatory process, and receive nod public comment. worse yet, the model utilized to predict the social cost of carbgen can be easily manipulated to arrive at a desired outcome. regardless of one's position on
11:35 pm
climate change, my colleagues surely must respect the constitutional role of the legislative branch and oppose bureaucratic efforts to circumvent an extremist environmental agenda that's not based on the best available science. congress must provide certain toy businesses and consumers and the costly and scientific -- that the costly and scientifically bankrupt s.c.c. will not creep its way into the regulatory process. my amendment provides that certainty. over the last two years, this effort has received support from the american energy alliance, americans for limited government, americans for tax reform, arch coal, competitive enterprise institute, the council for citizens against government waste, freedom works, national mining association, the national taxpayers union, the taxpayers protection agency alliance. congress, not unanimous washington bureaucrats, should dictate our country's climate policy. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment to once again block the s.c.c. metric.
11:36 pm
i urge support of my amendment. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. is there any member who wishes to rise in opposition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman -- ms. kaptur: i claim time in opposition to the gosar amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. kaptur: thank you so very much. i think the gentleman has a point of view that i do not support. but in terms of this amendment, it really is not necessary. it's redun danlt. -- redundant. n march 28 of this year, 2017, executive order 13783, signed by president donald trump, has rescinded every one of the analyses that you referenced in your proposed amendment. so, this amendment does less than nothing. it has already been dealt with through executive order. and i would just encourage my
11:37 pm
colleagues to -- let's move the agenda along this evening where we will have significant debate perhaps on other matters. but i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it is redundant at this point. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from ohio reserves. yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: i thank the chairman. i want to reiterate, even though president trump issued an executive order in march to disband the interagency working group on social cost of grean house gases, federal -- greenhouse gases, federal agencies continue to work on the s.c.c. valuation. so i at the very least would expect everybody to support this. and with that i would yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider
11:38 pm
amendment number 60 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? ms. delbene: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 60 printed in house report 115-259 offer by ms. delbene of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentlewoman from washington and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. ms. delbene: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer an important amendment to this year's energy and water development appropriations bill. it fixes a serious problem that must be addressed to protect hardworking americans in my district and across the country. both parties can agree that our nation should be spending taxpayer dollars on goods manufactured here at home. . t overseas whenever we can. doing so not only supports american jobs in our communities, but also reinforces
11:39 pm
our national security. even president trump called for strengthening and enforcing laws that promote american industry and american workers. so i hope my colleagueses from both sides of the aisle can come -- colleagues from both sides of the aisle can come together on this issue. it's imperative that we protect american production capabilities by supporting u.s. manufacturers. every year since 1991, congress has included a provision in the department of defense appropriations bill to require that military agencies purchase anchor chain from american businesses. and for the last two years, the house and senate have supported an amendment of mine clarifying that this requirement applies to the army corps of engineers. unfortunately the corps has continued to ignore clear congressional intent and has made several acquisitions of foreign-made anchor chain from countries like china and korea. until the army corps follow the policy, i'll keep fighting to support u.s. manufacturers and their workers. and i hope the whole chamber will join me in this effort. my amendment strengthens the existing language in this bill to better protect a critical
11:40 pm
production capability, support our manufacturing industry, and put american workers first. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. mr. simpson: mr. chairman. i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i rise to claim opposition to this amendment. the underlying bill has language on this issue. but i understand that the requirement may not be as comprehensive as my colleague purports. i'm concerned that the amendment before us may have unintended consequences. if my colleague would withdraw the amendment today, i will commit to working together as this bill moves through the legislative process to see if we can address her concerns in a manner acceptable to everyone. otherwise i will have to oppose the amendment. and i would yield to the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i would just say -- the chair: the gentleman yields to the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i would like to say thank you very much to the
11:41 pm
chairman of the subcommittee. i was rising to support the intent of her amendment. and i'm very glad to hear what you're saying there. she's trying to do everything she can to support american-made products. and particularly american-made anchor chain. and i would be willing to work with the chairman and the gentlewoman as the process goes forward to ensure we purchase american-made products. i just wanted to express that support and thank the gentleman for his offer and i yield back my time to him. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: is if the gentlelady is willing withdraw the amendment, we can work together to solve. this i yield to the gentlelady. ms. delbene: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with me on this important issue. and also ms. kaptur, representative kaptur, for her support. our nation can't afford to lose its critical production capability and we should not allow american workers to be
11:42 pm
left behind. i look forward toworking with both of you -- to working with both of you and i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. ms. delbene: thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. it is now in order it consider amendment number 61 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 61 printed in house report 115-259 offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from texas is now recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer an amendment to prevent a distortion of the free market by the federal government. since the passage in 2007 of the energy independence and security act, i've heard from literally tens of thousands of constituents about the language in that act. and how to will take away consumer choice when constituents are deciding which
11:43 pm
light bulbs they'll use in their homes. mr. chairman, they're right. mr. chairman, in the interest of time, i want to point out, this exact amendment has been accepted for the past six years by the house. three of those years it was accepted by voice vote. it was included in the annual appropriations legislation, signed into law by president obama every year since its inclusion in 2011. and has been a priority of the republican conference since its adoption into law. it allows consumers to continue to have a choice and to have a say about what type of light bulb they will put into their homes. congress should fight to preserve the free market. it's common sense. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member rise in opposition? the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: yes. i rise in strong opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. kaptur: and with all the respect i have for congressman burgess, i oppose this damaging rider, which would block the
11:44 pm
department of energy from implementing or enforcing commonsense energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. this rider was a bad idea when it was first offered seven years ago, and it is even more unsupportable now. now, why do i say that? because every claim made by proponents of the rider have been proven wrong. number one, we've been told, including by dr. burgess, that the energy efficiency standards would ban incandescent light bulbs. that is simply false. you can go to the store today and see shelves of modern energy-efficient, incandescent light bulbs that meet the standard. and they're the same as the old bubbles except they last longer -- bulbs except they last longer, use less electricity and save consumers money. then we heard for years that the energy efficiency standards restrict consumer choice. but if you shopped for light
11:45 pm
bulbs lately, which i have, you know that isn't true. in fact, -- in fact, modern incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent light bulbs, l.e.d.'s of every shape, size and color are now available. consumers have never had more choice. i'm amazed i'm amazed how many shelves light bulbs now occupy in the stores. critics of efficiency standards claimed they would cost consumers money. in fact, the opposite is true. when the standards are in full effect, the average american family will save about $100 every year. that's $12.5 billion for consumers and businesses nationwide every year. $12.5 billion. but this rider threatens those savings. that's why consumer groups have opposed this rider. here's the reality.
11:46 pm
the 2007 efficiency energy standards for light bulbs were enacted with bipartisan support and continue to enjoy overwhelming industry support. u.s. manufacturers are already meeting the feshtcy standards. the effect of the rider is to allow foreign manufacturers to sell old, inefficient light bulbs in the united states that violate the efficiency standards. that's unfair to domestic manufacturers who have invested millions to make efficient bulbs that meet the standards. why would we want to pass a rider that favors foreign manufacturers who ignore our laws an penalize u.s. manufacturers who are following our laws? but it gets worse. the existence of this rider poses a threat to u.s. manufacturing. the bipartisan 2007 energy bill required the department of energy to establish updated light bulb efficiency standards by january 1 of this year. it also provided that if final updated standards aren't issued
11:47 pm
by then a more stringent backup standard takes effect and incandescent light bulbs currently cannot meet this backstop standard. we are well into 2017 and the burgess light bulb rider has remained then books so earlier the department of energy has to go forward with finalizing the 45 lumen per watt backstop standard. approving this rider year after year is what blocked the department of energy from issuing the standards in time to avoid such strin joint measures. ironically it is this rider that would ban the incandescent light bulb by 2020. the burgess rider directly threatens existing light bulb manufacturing jobs in the united states. it would stifle innovation and punish companies that have investment in manufacturing. this rider aims to kill jobs,
11:48 pm
increase electricity bills for it's time to -- so choose common sense over ideology, try to listen to manufacturing companies and others who agree that this rider is harmful. i urge all members to vote no on the burgess light bulb rider. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. chairman. i disagree on the economics just presented. but apart from the economics of light bulbs, that is in fact only part of the story. the extreme expansion of federal powers undertaken in the last administration when the democrats were in charge of congress for four years, americans have just now begun to see how far the constitution's commerce clause has been manipulated from its original intent. the light bulb mandate is a perfect example of this manipulation. the commerce clause was intended by our founding fathers to be a
11:49 pm
limitation on federal authority, not a catch yawl nod to allow for any topic to be regulated by washington. indeed, it is clear that the founding fathers never intended nor clause to be used to allow the federal government to regulate and pass man tates on consumer products that do not pose a rifpk to either human health or safety. mr. chairman, in december, 2007, when this bill was first passed, the columnist george will observed on television one sunday morning that it is the job of the federal government to defend the borders and deliver the mail. but instead of keeping up with those two tasks, we instead decided to ban the incandescent bulb. it was wrong in 2007, it's wrong in 2017. i urge adoption of the amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the sque on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.
11:50 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 62 printed in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: ealt number 6 printed in house report 115-259 offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by thanking the committee for their hard work on this appropriations bill. every year, i come to this floor through the appropriations process to present amendments calling for 1% across the board cuts. so many years i've come down here to talk about how the
11:51 pm
spending continues to increase. and indeed, our budget does increase. but i have to tell you, the chairman and his team have done an incredible job this year. the outlays that we see in this million, year are $209 think about that, $209 million less than the budget authority from last year. that is significant and it should be recognized and should be praised. because that is the type work that we need to see. now, i do continue to present the 1% across the board amendment because we are facing a time in our nation where 1% makes a difference. just as we're seing from the goodwork that they have done. passing this amendment for the 1% across the board spending reduction would save us an adegreesal $376 million.
11:52 pm
it's important to do because our nation is facing $20 trillion in debt. so because of that, we have to ask ourselves, is it important to spend some of the money that's been spent on programs that we see taking place in the department of energy and it causes us to look at these programs and talk about priorities. where we should spend those precious dollars that are not federal dollars, they are taxpayer dollars. that are coming out of the pockets of hardworking men and women. indeed, we have many times quoted admiral mullen's comments from july 6, 2010, that the greatest threat to our nation's security is our nation's debt. and because of that, i recognize and applaud the good work that has been done but encourage support for my amendment and the
11:53 pm
continued toning and prioritizing of what takes the money. taxpayer money that is spent by this body. with that, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. is there any member who wishes to rise in opposition? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized. >> let me first say i compliment the gentlelady for her consistency, she's a true budget hawk in trying to make sure we balance this budget. mr. simpson: we have actually reduced spending in this bill over last year. could we reduce it another % across the board? the problem is, what we've had to do is choose some priorities. the highest priority we had was our nation's defense. nuclear weapons program. even though the overall bill is down $206 million, the defense
11:54 pm
activities are actually up $1 billion. $921 million or something, nearly $1 billion. we then have to look at the infrastructure of this nation and the fact that we have deteriorating infrastructure and congress has told us that each year we have to meet what's called the wrda target. we have to meet the infrastructure of our harbors an dams and inland waterways to restore those things because it's very important to our commerce and something the department of -- the congress supports greatly. so when we've had the increase -- to increase the army corps of engineers funding over what was requested, what was spent last year and increase the weapons activity the department of energy has been significantly reduced over what they were last year. we've had to make some hard choices. we thought eere, electrical energy and renewable energy
11:55 pm
program, cut it in half. had to eliminate the arpa-e program, a program i support. we had to eliminate the loan guarantee program. a program i support but we don't have the money for it. we have made some significant reductions while prioritizing basic science research and those types of activities within the department of energy. so i think we've done a good job given the pretty skinny budget. we've made tough choices. that's ok. that's what we do all the time in the appropriations committee. the reality is if we're ever going to balance this budget if anybody looks at the numbers, right now we're spending about 70% of this budget of our total federal budget on mandatory programs. we have been reducing discretionary spending over the years. as a portion of the total budget it's begun down every year. if we don't get ahold of mandatory spending, medicare,
11:56 pm
medicaid, social security, interest on the debt, if we don't get hold of that, within 10 years we will have enough money for our mandatory programs and defense. nothing else. zero. we are not going to balance this budget by reducing discretionary spending. keeping control of it, you bet. that's what we've been doing. that's what the appropriations committee has been doing since 2010. or earlier. we have actually been reducing spending. and it's very important that we do that. but we have to get ahold of mandatory spending if we are going to balance the budget. so while i appreciate what the gentlelady is trying to do, i agree with her, we need to balance this budget. we need to balance this budget. unfortunately, this is not the way to do. so i have to oppose this amendment and hope my colleagues
11:57 pm
oppose it also. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlelady from -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i understand there's no time. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. every comment mr. simpson made about mandatory spending is something i agree with. yes, we have to do that. just as we have reduced our legislative branch budget by about 20% over the last few years, and just as our appropriations committee has done a wonderful job of pull pulling back on the spending that is done to discretionary, we need to give that same challenge to the bureaucracy, to those rank and file federal employees and challenge them to go save a penny on a dollar out
11:58 pm
of what they're appropriationed. find a way to yield savings to the work that they do and help us with this process to rein in spending. i encourage support of the amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. blackburn: 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 tennessee will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 63 point -- prinned in house report 115-259. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seen recognition? >> i've got an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will dez ig in it the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 63 offered by mr. perry of
11:59 pm
pennsylvania. the chair: per subte to theres. lution, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry and the a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. perry: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perry: this amendment, first of all, want to thank the appropriations committee for the extraordinary work they've done in a very limited amount of time in the subcommittee -- and the subcommittee chairman for this opportunity. this amendment would prohibit the use of funds to implement or enforce the final rule published by the former secretary of energy entitled test proceed wrurs for central air conditioners and heat pump. mr. chairman, this is simply an example of too much washington. too much government. i'm sure it was well intended but i'm not sure if the good idea fairies in washington really realize fully what they did. certainly we want to have test standard and so on and so forth but the one size fits all apch

45 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on