radiation research act, which authorizes $20 million in fiscal year 2019, funding for this critical research. i hope we can work together to provide this funding for low-dose radiation research. i again thank chairman simpson for his long standing support of basic research and investments in d.o.e.'s best in the world science facilities. and i greatly appreciate the effort that the chairman has made to prioritize fundamental science in our long standing partnership to responsibly fund d.o.e. i am prepared to withdraw my amendment and to continue working with the chairman to advance the house-passed authorization levels for these important projects in conference. the chair: the gentleman reserve? mr. smith: i reserve. mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition. i thank the chairman for the authorizing and strong support.

i recognized the house -- i recognize the house-passed authorizations for d.o.e. upgrades and lowe h low-dose radiation. i appreciate the chairman highlighting these priorities and i look forward to ensure these projects receive sufficient funding and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. smith: i appreciate his commitment and support and for the reasons that i mentioned and because of his commitment, i'll withdraw the amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 20 printed in part b of house report 115-711. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. keating: i have an amendment

at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 offered by mr. keating of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 918, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. keating: my amendment allocates for additional research in innovative technologies for safe and secure storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of spent nuclear fuel from civilian nuclear reactors. five nuclear power plants have retired since 2013. six more across the country, including the pilgrim nuclear power plant in my district, are slated to retire in the next few years. this is timely, because just last month, this house passed by margin of 340-72, a bill to

improve nuclear waste storage. reactors can shut down, but that doesn't mean there is a safe and secure plan for spent fuel stored on site. pilgrim has been operating for over 45 years in massachusetts and its spent fuel has been stored there ever sense. pilgrim plant is slated to retire in 2019, exactly one year from today. the spent fuel there needs to be addressed and my community in plymouth and those around the country are asking legitimate questions of how the safety and security of these materials can be increased. we have an opportunity to dig deeper into these questions and find better answers for my constituents and for people around the country who have a nuclear power plant nearby. new advanced research should examine how the safety and

security of spent fuel pools can be improved. additionally, the you safe transfer of materials to dry casks deserves to be re-examined as does the design and long-term integrity. the transportation and ultimate disposal is crucial in identifying the best and safest long-term solutions. they, too, need to be examined and improved. my amendment supports further research into these areas so when nuclear energy is part of our community, we are able to ensure as best we can that spent nuclear fuel is secure and not posing unnecessary threats. i thank my colleagues for consideration of this amendment and urge their support and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio?

ms. kaptur: i rise to claim time in opposition although i do not oppose. i support congressman keating and his amendment here dealing with spent nuclear fuel. we need a solution all across our country to spent nuclear fuels stored on dozens and dozzyeps of sites. we thought we had a solution, $14 billion has been invested and yet because of opposition from those who were not consulted in nevada before that site was constructed, our nation has been at a standstill. i want to compliment the gentleman from massachusetts for bringing up this issue. northern ohio, a vast region that i and other ohio members represent have more than one nuclear power plant that is faced with spent nuclear fuel on site and we know that the department of energy is doing

tremendous work in this arena, very fine work, but we simply can't continue to talk about this. we actually have to begin to store fuel. this amendment would build on the work that d.o.e. has been doing to continue to invest in such a critically important area as spent nuclear fuel and its permanent storage. i urge my colleagues to support the keating amendment. and i yield to the gentleman remaining on my watch here. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. keating: i reserve and yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from hio is recognized. ms. kaptur: if the gentleman does not wish to claim the time. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from massachusetts

is recognized. mr. keating: i'll just yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time yielding back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. 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 21 printed in part bmp of house report 115-711. it is now in order to consider amendment number 22 printed in art b of house report 115-711.

for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? amendment amendment number 22 rinted in house report 115-711 offered by mr. langevin of rhode island. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. langevin: i offer this amendment today to direct $3 million to the office of science of the department of energy for science work being done across the country. these funds would support diverted tests. the fusion community has identified the need for this for diverted testing for a necessary research facility.

fusion science, mr. chairman, is the future of energy production offering unique and substantial advantages compared to other advantages. it is safe, clean and sustainable energy source that can provide the united states with limitless energy supply. and the future is closer than we think. the production is a very real possibility within the next 10 years. however, there are outstanding technical issues that must be solved before we harness fusion. among them is dealing with extreme temperatures generated through the process, over one million degrees. the design could test solutions to this problem. these funds have the immediate need which will help keep the united states as a leader. we must pursue this research in development work.

this work may have critical national security implications. 2019 use report, the f.y. national defense authorization act contains language asking the defense department to explore our national security initiatives. history has shown that research funding forces innovative ideas that can produce improvements over those presently employed. the current science research program has plasma in material science which could support defense initiatives. to ensure this work continues and we capitalize on its findings, congress must act to fund this important work. with that, i would like to thank chairman simpson and ranking member kaptur for taking my request in consideration. this requestions is important for providing our energy

security and i urge its adoption. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. any member claim time in opposition? seeing none -- recognize the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: i thank my colleagues' consideration of this amendment. i think it's important to try to meet the future energy needs of our country and i urge its adoption. with that, i thank my colleagues and 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 rhode island. 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 23. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? > i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. kihuen of nevada. the chair: the member from nevada and a member opposed each will control five minutes. kiki i come to the floor to discuss the state of nevada's fierce opposition to use yacka as a nuclear waste dump. while i have the opportunity to speak to you today, i'm frustrated with the recent action congress has taken. yucca mountain lies in my congressional district. in the 30 years passed the screw nevada bill, they have wasted taxpayers' money on a project

that nevada has repeatedly said will not happen. and now, this congress wants to continue to spend money on this failed project in fiscal year 2019 appropriations. i'm trying to fight to prevent nuclear waste coming to my home state. i introduced the energy and water development and related act. eakt would strike $190 mill for the licensing for the depository at yucca mountain. i have to hear to reduce our deficit and debt. congress should not waste another $190 million of taxpayer money on a project that will not come to fruition. but you should support my amendment not on the fiscal

basis. my home state of nevada which has no nuclear producing facilities shouldn't be the dumping ground of the nuclear waste. and this is an issue that impacts 329 districts in 44 states and washington, d.c.,. putting a nuclear repository means this high live level nuclear waste must travel through your back yards. you will see it transported on rail and by truck. a simple car crash or train derailment while leave your constituents more at risk and will cost more money to clean it up. opening yucca mountain presents threlts to people and unwanted by the people of nevada. that is why i encourage you to prevent yucca mountain ever coming to nevada.

i reserve to my colleague, jackie rosen. the chair: the jar yields. - the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. rosen: mr. chairman, i rise in support of our amendment which would strike funding for the yucca mountain project. like the vast majority of nevadans, i firmly oppose any attempt to turn my state into the nation's nuclear waste dump. dumping nuclear waste at yucca mountain would only endanger the health and safety of my constituents who live just 90 miles away from the las vegas valley. it would threaten millions of americans in 44 states. this ill-conceived plan would mean transporting tens of thousands of metric tons of radioactive waste across this country. and those shipments of hazardous materials would travel on our highways and railways to nevada,

over 329 congressional districts. on a weekly basis for more than 50 years. finally, providing yucca mountain would jeopardize military testing and training in our defense facilities. our amendment would strike $190 million for the licensing for this administration's plan to turn nevada into a dumping ground. that's the bulk of the funding for this dangious failure of a project. we shouldn't waste another dime of taxpayer money on failed efforts to try to send nuclear waste to yucca mountain. it's time to move on from this reckless and costly project. so i urge my colleagues to support our amendment, to remove this licensing funding, and instead work with us on alternative solutions that repurpose yucca mountain into something that can create jobs and keep our families safe. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman reserves. does anyone claim time in opposition? for what purpose does the

gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. let me be clear what this amendment does. this is a thousand pages of the safety and evaluation report by the nuclear regulatory commission. ive volumes. the nuclear regulatory commission is our independent safety agency on all things nuclear. what my colleagues from nevada's amendment does -- colleague from nevada as he amendment does is strip the money -- nevada's amendment does is strip the money for what they keep telling me they want. they want to prove the science. they want to say, it's not safe.

the nuclear regulatory ommission says it's safe for a million years. now, if my colleagues from nevada want to debate the science, then they can do that per the nuclear waste policy act , through the licensing project. but, no. they don't want to put their science up against our independent nuclear safety agency. they want to adjudicate this in the court of a public opinion, and deprive the money, to have that final science debate. so this amendment is really an anti-science amendment. to not debate the n.r.c.'s finding. because we know that in their conclusion, they say storing nuclear waste in a long-term

geological repository, and this is the world consensus, in a deep geological repository, is what the world scientists say is the safest way to store spent nuclear fuel and defense waste. that's not just the united states. that's france, that's norway, that's great britain, that's many of our allies and friends and their scientists. again, a thousand pages, five volumes. public record. this amendment takes that money away so we don't have a debate n the science. it's either in the desert, underneath a mountain, a thousand feet above the ground table, a thousand feet below the top of the mountain, or in the pacific ocean. that's the choices that we had debated in h.r. 35053.

and not only that, -- 3053. and not only, that the chamber as a whole in a bipartisan manner said, 340 members, actually more democrats supported h.r. 5053 than opposed it. 340-72. why? because we have a national problem. which requires a national solution. we have to keep our promises. these are the operating commercial and nuclear reactors. this doesn't even talk about the defense issue. the national media from other countries are on our side as far as moving forward if the science is found to be liable -- reliable. the nuclear regulatory commission says a million years. the state of nevada says, not so. let's have the debate. let's not strip the money away to have that final debate.

that's why i ask my colleagues to reject this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from nevada. mr. kihuen: i reserve the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from nevada reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i'll just close, mr. chairman. thank you for the time. i'm glad this amendment came. because our job now is to educate not only the state of nevada, but it's also to educate our colleagues from across the country, that the science debate, the final decision needs to be through the licensing, the nuclear regulatory commission, the independent -- our independent federal nuclear safety agency says it will be safe formal years. nevada says, not so. let's have the debate. let's not strip the money. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman from nevada is recognized. mr. kihuen: mr. chairman, i yield the remaining 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 nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. the chair will receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messager: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 2377, an act to designate the federal building

in the united states courthouse located at 200 west second street in dayton, ohio, as the walter h. rice federal building and united states courthouse. in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee of the whole will come together. -- to order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 24 printed in part b of house report 115-711. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in part b of house report 115-711 offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 918, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. the arpa-e program first began receiving funding through the 2009 obama stimulus and is currently unauthorized. arpa grew out of those years, overly optimistic perception of the federal government's ability to lead in areas of commercially viable energy research and technology, particularly in renewables. the obvious problem with this premise is that the government, unlike our nation's stress and corporations, have never been in the business of it cost-benefit maximization, or other blunders from the period like so lind are a scandal demonstrated. this is because the federal government is competent and accomplished in the areas of basic early-stage scientific research. but poorly positioned to move research from concept to market. and arpa-e provides even further demonstration of that. the subcommittee on energy and water defnd funded a program in their f.y. 2018 draft-passed bill. the administration and the republican study committee have voket limiting this stimulus era

program and have indicated that the proper role of government in energy research is at the level of basic research, taking place in existent, well-funded programs like the office of science and applied energy research and development program. those d.o.e. programs that they point to are more worthy recipients of federal dollars, are effective and produce results because they focus on the right goals. for this reason, the administration is also strongly opposed to continued funding for the arpa-e program. the white house stated in its fiscal year 2019 budget proposal, arpa-e were only authorized through 2013 ubbled the america competes re-authorization act of 2010. in addition, there have been concerns about the potential for arpa-e's effects to overlap with research and development being carried out or which should be carried out by the private sector. no new appropriations are requested in 2019. the department would request reprogramming of prior years' unobligated balances for program

closeout activities to ensure full closure of arpa-e by mid 2020. any remaining contract closeout and award monitoring activities would be transferred elsewhere within d.o.e. these proposed eliminating -- elimination reflects both a streamline of federal activities and a refocusing on the proper federal role in the energy, research and development. in a may 15 letter to house appropriations on energy and water bill, the white house stated, quote, the administration is disappointed that the bill does not eliminate arpa-e. the committee is encouraged to explore options to incorporate certain arpa-e attributes such as cross-cutting research coordination and enhanced flexibility into the department of energy's primary research efforts within the office of science and applied energy research programs, rather than maintain a separate program through arpa-e. in a june 5 s.a.p., the white house stated, administration believes that the continued funding of arpa-e makes little

strategic sense given the existence of an applied energy research elsewhere within the department. the congress is urged to eliminate arpa-e and incorporate its most successful elements such as coordination with industry and cost-cutting research into the department's applied energy programs. the innovations arpa-e supporters crow about must come from a market or from academic research institution, because the federal government's track record of responding to commercial incentives in a cost-beneficial way to the taxpayer is absolutely poor. the proper federal nexus for research in the early stage work being done at the existing office of science and applied ergy research program, not projects, foisted onto the government that weren't compelling enough to receive private funding. heritage action, freedomworks, club for growth and the national taxpayer union are key voting this amendment. the amendment is also endorsed by the americans for limited government and taxpayers for common sense. i urge adoption of this amendment that supports

president trump's agenda and with that i reserve. 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 chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: i rise in strong opposition to this eafment this would eliminate the advanced research projects agencies known as arpa-e. arpa-e's mission is to fund probablies that are not yet addressed by the private sector but that can bring transformational shifts in current energy technologies. from reducing the energy involved in producing aluminum to creating new battery storage technologies theerks are projects that have impacts in almost every industry. since 2009 arpa-e has provided funding for more than 660 projects. as of this year, arpa-e projects have produced 245 passents, formed 71 new companies, and have raised more than $2.9 billion in follow-on funding from the private sector to bring technologies to market.

these are successes and successes help ensure our nation's energy security and create a manufacturing edge in the energy sector. these are energy technology goals all members can support and i would remind my friend from arizona, our job is not to be lemmings for the administration. it's to make our own independent judgment. while i appreciate and look at the reason that they would like to eliminate arpa-e, i disagree with him. so do a majority of members of the congress as they have demonstrated in the past. so we must exercise our independent judgment on what is best while we respect the administration's position. we just disagree with it. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from idaho reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, yes. any program that receives this much funding has individual successes, proponents can point to. the problem with this program is the ratio of successes to the

failures is far lower than this -- with this one than comparable federal research program. it also targets an area of research that is inappropriate for federal research. basic early stage research is a proper avenue for federal dollars to go. not late-stage research on projects approaching commercialization. if a concept or technology is nearing commercialization, that's the right nexus for private industry to get involved. our country's major companies in tech, engneering and energy are flush with cash and projects that they are commercially viable are getting more funding than ever before. failure by the government to salvage project means the projects on a whole aren't worth being salvaged by government, industry or anyone. and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i would yield to the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i rise to strongly

oppose the gosar amendment to arpa-e ly eliminate the advanced energy research program which helps propel our nation forward as a global leader. i would say to the gentleman from georgia, some of the firms that contacted me, the chinese are hacking into their intellectual property every week as they struggle to maintain a global lead in new global technology. yes, arpa-e is high risk and high end. so much so that the private sector won't do what arpa e. the research is so high in science that most companies in this country can't touch it and i don't want the chinese designing our future. they are actually doing research before the private markets can dive it forward with a

commercial product. enterprise american institute study wanted it to be funded at $1.5 billion because of other countries around the world doing research in the world that was competing with our own. a panel of many of the nation's top leaders included for arpa-e to be funded at $1 billion and oil and energy executives and business leaders and u.s. chamber of commerce told congress that arpa-e will keep america at the forefront of global technology research. we ought to be listening to them. we are their representatives. as the program focused on new possibilities. 136 projects attracting $3 billion in private sector

follow-on funding, they won't do the research but will take what we invested and do something in the marketplace. but beyond just the marketplace. something to do with our defense, for example, our national security. inventing the future and we come to expect this administration and want to eliminate funding. you eliminate the future. you eliminate the future. so i rise in -- and i oppose this amendment and i encourage my colleagues to vote no on the deposear amendment. mr. simpson: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: this is an unauthorized program and it's a program in search of justification. t's take sill indra, private

sector couldn't do it? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gosar: i ask my colleagues to vote on this. the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. gosar: recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 25 printed in part bmp of house report 115-711. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? queel jackson lee i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in part bmp of house report 115-711 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 918, the gentlewoman from texas, and a member opposed

each will control five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chair and i thank mr. simpson and ms. kaptur for working to try to put forward a bill and to recognize the unfortunate addition of riders which we would hope that we could pass these kind of bills in the appropriate manner. but i thank them for their work and i thank the rules committee for making this amendment in order. this is an important part of the energy and water legislation and propriations and that is the department of energy's departmental work that it does with environmental justice. my amendment would ask an additional $1 million to be placed in that program under the administration, the administrator's office responsibility, to put an

additional $1 million in that program and it is an essential tool to improve the lives of low-income and minority communities. many of my members have worked on this issue, in particular, jim clyburn and congressional black caucus and i add to their work by making sure that this is the focus of the department of energy, maintaining funds for environmental justice that go to historically black colleges and universities and tribal colleges and other organizations is imperative to protect sustainability and growth in the environment and community. in particular those individuals who study those issues in the institutions of higher learning go out to our source of research and aid of communities that suffer from the lack of community justice. in flint, michigan, it is clear

that that is a place where an infusion of experts how to deal with unclean water. i worked with one of the renowned infectious disease d.o.e.'s justice program provides dollars to be awarded to an important cause and increasing youth involvement f stem and prompting asset weatheration. the housing stock in my district as in rural communities is extremely old and weak and subjected to the whims of bad winter weather and very hot summers. these dollars can assist. the community leaders institute is another vital component of the environmental justice program and it promotes

sustainability and brings public health and economic development. it is an important program that helps native americans and alaskan natives. i hope that my colleagues support my amendment because it deals with an emphasis on the importance of a quality of life that can deal with a good environment. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. simpson: the amendment does not change funding levels. i will not oppose my amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: we emphasize and ask for that amount of dollars in the administrative account to be increased on the environmental justice program. we are grateful for the statement of the chairman. and with that in mind, we want to remind our colleagues that

stem programs, the program that will helps in leadership in particular that will help young people learn more about environmental justice, the issues that we see, clean water, clean air and zika virus and other issues that impact, the environmental justice program can be useful and i ask my colleagues to support my amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is now 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 and the amendment is agreed to. ms. jackson lee: thank you. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 26 rinted in part b of 115-711. ms. lee: i have an amendment at the desk.

lee amendment number 45. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26 printed in part bmp of house offered by ms. lee of california. ms. lee: first -- the chair: the gentlewoman from california and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. lee: let me thank mr. sessions and our ranking member, mr. mcgomp and all the members of the committee for making this amendment in order. my amendment is very straightforward. it would cut 65 million included in this bill for low-yield nuclear weapons and transfer it to the nonproferingse account. it strikes one of the most harmful recommendations. funding this warhead would set a dangerous precedent. the last thing is arm our submarines with a low-yield

ballistic missile. we have never done this and there is no reason to start now. what's worse, this warhead lowers us on a dangerous path to war. we should be reducing the threat of nuclear war, we are doing the opposite. while the administration says it would deter russia, that is far from the truth. funding this nuclear weapon could heighten the risk. this additional funding is both unness and dangerous. our nation poses low-yield warheads. we will invest another $150 billion despite the fact that we have the capacity to destroy the world many times over. this is a waste of money and a danger to our national security. instead of provoking another nuclear arms race with russia,

we should be investing in ploims and disarmament. this would be better spent at it's nnuclear program and hard to think of more vital national security issue than protecting and securing nuclear material. and yet republicans have cut funding for this program by $97 million from fiscal 2018. this is dangerous and does nothing. rather than fund another low-yield nuclear weapon that we don't need, we should increase the nonnuclear accounts and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. my amendment is so important and i urge my colleagues to support it. and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. simpson: i claim time in opposition of the amendment. i rise in strong op significance of this amendment.

this is critical to national security priority. the bill provides necessary fnding to extend the life of our stockpile and address the deterioration. the amendment targets a new proposal to modify a limited number of w-76 warheads that are undergoing refurbishment. they will either be refurbished with a high-yield warhead or a low-yield warhead. this moives does not provide the u.s. with any new capabilities. the u.s. has the capability and will correspondent to maintain that capability to deliver warheads at this yield with the air force's b-61 bomb and the air-launched cruise missile. these are necessary to provide a deterrent against the warheads against similar yields that exist in large numbers against

other nuclear weapons states. any agressor that the u.s. has the capability to provide a proportional response to the use of a tactical weapon against the u.s. or its allies. the u.s. nuclear strategy and the obama administration advocating maintaining the b-61 bomb and the nuclear-tipped missile. u.s. has this same capability, i disagree with the argument that this will destabilize relations. the intent of this warhead modification is to improve stability to demonstrate that the u.s. has the capability to deliver this on platforms that are not vulnerability to air defenses. it is intended to improve the credibility of our nuclear deterrent and the u.s. has the resolve to respond. credibility is the most basic

requirement of nuclear deterrence sm the amendment would reduce the size of w-76 stockpile because it refurbishment work that is needed to extend the work. i support the modification and i urge members to vote no and i reserve. . . ms. lee: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from oregon. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate her courtesy and her focusing on this. i agree wholeheartedly. we don't need to go down this path again. the republican congress in 2005 looked at a similar proposal and eliminated from a spending bill. he notion that we have low-yield weapons that are going o enable us to advance forward

from the submarine launch is troubling. this actually will make the submarine exposed for being able to know where it is and attack it. and the low yield terminology is a little disquieting. think of the bomb that destroyed hiroshima. these are amazingly destructive. being able to have gray dations of response -- gradeations of response and buy into -- gradations of response and buy in a this -- into that notion is destable igse. the $1.-- destabilizing. the $1.of trillion episode that -- $1.6 trillion episode that we're embarked upon could be well spent in other ways. especially not in this direction. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. ms. lee: reserves. the chair: the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman, chairman of the armed services committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for two minutes. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. chairman. we voted on a similar amendment on this topic a week before last. in the national defense authorization act. it was defeated then and it should be defeated now. mr. chairman, i think there must be some misunderstanding. we're not talking about a new weapons system. what we're talking about is taking an existing weapon and taking some of the fissile material out so that it results in a lower yield. as the chairman from idaho pointed out, we have similar low-yield weapons that are air delivered. the only difference here is a different delivery system through the submarines. now, by the way, submarines already have the higher yield delivery system. we're multiplying for the low yield two different delivery systems to complicate adversaries' calculations. why would we want to do that? it turns out the russians have hundreds and hundreds of those lower yield weapons and not only

that, they write and speak openly about using them. even in conventional sorts of conflicts. so the point of the nuclear posture of you is, we need the fink full range of nuclear capability -- full range of nuclear capability. from higher yield to lower yield. to make it clear that our nuclear deterrent is credible at every level. whatever they may think they can get away with, they cannot get away with. as secretary mattis has written to leader mcconnell on june 3, 2018, this warhead is meant to reinforce the credibility of our response, which strengthens deterrence by denying potential adversaries the advantages they appear to believe they realize from nuclear first use. it seems to me that should be the thing that all of us come together on in national security. it is having a credible nuclear deterrent to ensure that no adversary, russia, north korea,

no one believes that they can get away with using these weapons. that's the reason this is so important. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from idaho reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lee: thank you. mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentlelady from california has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. lee: i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this amendment which would strike $55 million from the development of the w-76-2 or low-yield nuclear warhead and moving that to the nuclear nonproliferation account. the development of these warheads is based on the fallacy that nuclear war can be small and contained user smaller, low-yield weaponry. the idea that a nuclear war can be detained is terrifyingly dangerous. former secretary of state george schultz has affirmed this saying that nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons. and the only logical path of a nuclear strike is escalation to

higher yield weapons. this sentiment was recently reiterated in a letter signed by secretary schultz and nearly three dozen other current and former national security experts and officials, including former senate foreign relations committee and secretary of defense, opposing the development these types of warheads. further development these types of weapons creates a greater possibility for nuclear confrontation that will be impossible to contain. instead of making us safer, it will only increase the chances that countless lives could be wiped out in an instant. this is an excellent amendment. it will make america safer. i urge my colleagues to support the excellent, excellent amendment by the gentlelady from california. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise as the designee of ranking member lowey to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur. the chair: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized.

ms. kaptur: i thank congresswoman lee, my colleague on appropriations, for offering this very important amendment. and i rise in support of it. please let me remind my colleagues who may not agree th our position that if this particular proposal for developing a low-yield nuclear weapon were so important, why was it not included in the administration's initial budget submission to us? the process by which this has been handled for a nuclear weapon, if this was a conventional, well, maybe, you know, there's little room there for maneuver. but in terms of a nuclear weapon, it has many consequences beyond the weapon itself. including the understanding of our allies, including many of the treaties that are currently in place. and i was actually shocked when the secretary of energy came before our committee and many people from the department of energy, and they could not ask -- answer any questions on this.

the nuclear security agency, when they came up before our committee, at that point this had not been proposed. it came in late. it was like thrown over the tran some and i think the manner in which this has been handled is actually terrible. we have the most capable and sophisticated nuclear arsenal in the world. it is credible enough to deter and respond to any threat. right now. we have what we need. but if we are to alter the combination of weapons that we have in our arsenal, then for heaven's sake, why not come up under regular order? we owe it to the american people and to our allies to have a full discussion and debate and assess how others will react to what we are doing and what we need to respond to. this may not be the most perfect response. and we don't want to wander down a path to a variety of nuclear weapons without the kind of

debate on deterrence, on security, on cost, on schedule, on relation to existing systems that we have in place in our own country or others. so i really think the manner in which this was handled was absolutely awful. and for something that deals with nuclear weapons, this congress deserves more respect, the american people deserve more respect, and the world community deserves more respect. i'm not saying we'll never support this but this is not the time to support this. i think the congresswoman has proposed the proper amendment. and that is to strike the low-yield missile at this point. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. to the gentlewoman from california. ms. lee: thank you. i yield now to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from alifornia is recognized. the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. garamendi: i want to rise in support of the amendment. i also want to compliment my

colleagues on the other side of this argument. the chairman of the house armed services committee. i see our friend from colorado and others here. all of us have the same goal. and that is to assure that the united states, and indeed the world, is safe from a nuclear war. we use deterrents as the way of accomplishing that. every president since ronald reagan has strived to achieve a safer world by reducing the number of nuclear weapons. however, in the recent years, beginning with president obama and being carried on today, we're now involved in a new nuclear arms race. not only are we going to build new nuclear weapons, bombs, if 76-d -- such as this 76-2. we are also creating new delivery systems. new land-based missiles in the

upper midwest. new submarines. and new rockets. and new stealth bombers. all of that costing more than $1 trillion. and at the same time we are developing new sensing devices in any ways in which we might protect those sensing devices and communications. all of which is creating an extremely dangerous world for our future. not a safer world. we're going in the absolutely wrong direction of increasing the likelihood of a mistake. i don't think anybody on any side would want to initiate. but this particular bomb presents the opportunity for an escalation. a tit for tat. russia escalates, de-escalate. we escalate to de-escalate. and they escalate and we escalate and pretty soon it's all gone. and i would just ask all of us to step back and ponder for a moment why it was that reagan

and george h.w. bush and clinton allgeorge w. bush and obama went the other direction to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. but here we are in the midst of a new nuclear arms race. $1,600,000,000,000. and all of us know there are numerous needs we have. and so i'd ask us just to pause for a second. to accept this amendment. and to -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garamendi: i yield. the chair: the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: is all the time expired on that side? the chair: the gentlewoman has 15 seconds. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lee: mr. chairman, let me just say a couple of things. our country should not expand the number of scenarios under which the united states might consider the use of nuclear weapons. we should never be in a position that the u.s. is using nuclear weapons first, which would lead

us to a catastrophic war. i thank members on both sides of the aisle -- i think members on both sides of the aisle can agree to this and i urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: is all of the time expired on my side from the original five minutes? the chair: the gentleman from idaho has 30 seconds remaining. mr. simpson: let me stay in this 30 seconds, first of all, addressing the gentlelady from ohio's concerns. the administration waited until the nuclear posture review was done before they could submit the request for this funding. the budget request had been worked on, from the last september before that, and they came up within days of each other. but the administration was waiting for the n.p.r. to be finished before they submitted. we might not have liked the way that turned out but that's the reality. i don't think it was anybody's intent to try to misguide congress or anything like that. while i understand her concern.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to strike the last word. mr. simpson: before i yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. bam born, let me say -- mr. lamborn, let me say, the impression here is we're increasing the number of nuclear weapons. we are not. we're doing refurbishment of the current weapons and 50 of them would not be high-level, they would be low-level. low-yield. nuclear weapons. it doesn't increase the numbers. all of this is compliant with all of our nuclear treaties. compliant with all of our nuclear treaties. when i first heard about this i actually had the same concerns i'm hearing from other side of the aisle. how does this increase our safety? doesn't it make it more likely that it would be used if it was a low-yield rather than a high-yield? then i went to some briefings and talked to some people and people who wrote the n.p.r. and a few things like that, and i found out that russia is --

already has hundreds and hundreds, as the chairman of the committee said, has hundreds and hundreds of low-yield nuclear war heads. why are they doing that? why would they possibly do that? because they think it will give them a strategic advantage in a traditional war. if our only response to their use of a low-yield nuclear bet n is armageddon, their is that we're not going to go to that level. for deterrence to work, it has to be credible. they have to understand that if they even use a low-yield nuclear weapon, we will respond. and we have the capability to do it in proportion, without destroying the world. but you also have to understand, we're not talking about first-use -- first use by us.

this is meant to this is to decrease the likelihood of a nuclear exchange. if we don't do this, we will increase the likelihood of a nuclear exchange, otherwise, why are they creating hundreds and low-yield d creating nuclear weapons. stop and think about it. i would like tore yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. mr. lamborn: i thank the gentleman from idaho and i appreciate his remarks. let me point out that in the 2018 nuclear posture review, secretary mattis conducted a clear-eyed assessment of threats. as has been pointed out, russia

has hundreds and hundreds, actually thousands of low-yield nuclear weapons, including nuclear weapon artillery shells, land mines and nuclear torpedos and others they have announced and russia trains with its posture.to-de-escalate the review says correcting this mistake is a strategic imperative. and also, dozens of current and former defense first and military officers have confirmed thm weapon is necessary to enhance deterrence. here's president obama's last secretary of defense, ashton carter, quolet, my views are reflected in the latest nuclear posture review where he agrees with this doctrine. that is the last two secretaries

of defense from two different political parties, from two different administrations, very different administrations, i might add. and they are in full agreement that we need to do this for u.s. pability to stop russian potential aggression. the amendment should be rejected. the agenda is outside the bipartisan mainstream of serious national security leaders like secretary james mattis and secretary ashton carter. and as has been said, this house has debated this issue and in the fiscal year ndaa, we passed that bill two weeks ago by a a 6-1 351-66, about ratio and we rejected similar amendments at that time. i urge my colleagues to vote no.

and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from idaho yields back. the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion -- ms. lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 27 printed in part b of house report 115-711. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in part b of house report 115-711 offered by mr. connelly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 918, the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i yield myself such time as i may consume. my amendment would increase the defense nuclear nonprofferings program by $97 million to offset this increase, my amendment funds the nuclear weapons activity program at $6460 million above its 2018 appropriation. that's right. this amendment returns the nonprofferings account to its f.y. 2018 enacted level of funding and still provides the nuclear activities program nearly a half a billion increase. this amendment is a simple tradeoff, support the nuclear profferings at the expense of nuclear weapons.

but the numbers reveal that this amendment offers us not such a trade but a win i-win situation while sacrificing little in terms of nuclear weapons spending. that's because this underlying bill includes more than 180 million above what the president, president trump, is requesting for nuclear weapons activities. f.y. million above the 2018 appropriation. that makes this a win-win amendment. both of these accounts fund nonproferingse and stockpile protection programs that we can support. but i fear we are underfunding nonprofferings in a manner inconsistent with our stated priorities. in the 2018 nuclear posture resue, the administration stated, quote, nuclear terrorism

remains the most significant threats to the security of the united states, our allies and partners, unquote. the national nuclear administration program works globally to prevent state and nonstate actors from acquiring weapons nuclear or radiological materials, equipment, technology and expertise. this is removal, international nuclear security, nuclear struggling and deterrence and safeguards and nuclear death nation detection and includes the nuclear counterterrorism incident response program. however, the administration's concern is not matched by its budget request where the fundings level. additionally i'm concerned that the current funding level does

not lay the groundwork for the challenge now posed by a possible denuclearization agreement that all of us hope will occur. the administration's nuclear posture review declared north korea's program must be completely eliminated. i share that goal. if you want to ensure the agency have the training and expertise they need to implement a complete irreversible denuclearization, then you must report the program and do not want to see it cut by $97 billion. there are nuclear programs funded in this bill that are unnecessary. nd eliminating both of these programs would help the

nonproliferation program return to its 2018 level. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. e chair: for what reason gentleman from idaho? mr. simpson: i rise in opposition. this bill shows strong support for the nonproliferation programs. something that i support. and funding for the defense nonproliferation and $39 million above the budget request. that includes increases for research and development activities for which we received member requests. i have supported increases in the past for these activities. the $2 billion amendment that this amendment seeks to achieve is a result of an increase of $206 million. the nonproliferation account has

significant unexpended balanceses are the result of nonproliferation agreements and the infusion of additional funding added by congress in prior years. it is not enough to say we support nonproliferation and we support it by increasing the budget. that's how much we support it. it has to go towards something. you have to have agreements with international partners. in may, the nnsa reported that it had, listen to this, in may, he ns arch a reported it has $2.6 billion in available funds to carry out its nonprofferings mission in which $137 million is eft over from prior years. $333 million left over from prior years and you want to add to that.

given the increased amount, it is not clear that they will be able to expand additional funding. it will not add to programs to which the agency said it could pressure, it would do so at funding necessary to sustain our clear stockpile and secure facilities and support a science-based stockpile. that's why i oppose this amendment. and i would reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: how much time is left on this side? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. connolly: i yield to ms. kaptur of ohio. ms. kaptur: i thank congressman for yielding me and i rise in support of this very important amendment to move $97 million to

the nonproferingse account. without question we are going to undergo modernization of our entire nuclear stockpile in this country and spend well over $1 trillion. we had discussions this afternoon and debate about this low-yield nuclear weapon, which many people have misgivings about. and there is no more important time in terms of the world when we look at unstable regimes. regimes that hold nuclear weapons. for us to have the most capable people with the most technical expertise to advise not just people here in the united states but our friends and allies and international organizations concerned about nuclear proliferation. the gentleman's amendment increases our ability and doesn't harm our ability to monitor and verify arm control.

so i support the agreement. and what we are doing with our own arsenal and what it is doing globally. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: only thing i would ask the gentlelady, what are you going to do with the additional $97 million? what are you going to do with it? they can't spend it. we have to have agreements with foreign countries to do nonproliferation work. where are they going to spend it? i have been complaining, not complaining, but arguing with members for the last several years that want to put money to show their support into nonproliferation. i ask, what do you want to do with it? they can't tell you. by saying we increase the nonproliferation account, it shows we support nonproliferation.

you have to show something that you are going to do with it. mr. connolly: i have a list of projects totalling up to 190 million. and i would also just add and i yield back, given the fact that the president ripped up the iran nuclear agreement, we have to spend more money and having a summit with north korea, we will have to spend more money. mr. simpson: you have an agreement with iran to do nonproliferation work? the reason we have some excess money, the agreements with russia when things got cold between our two countries, some of those agreements went by the wayside. and i would like to know what the projects are if somebody has come up, if there are agreements. you have to have some agreements. you just can't say, i want to spend the money. nd if that is accurate at $190

mill, you have $733 million to do with it right now. why not throw another $97 million. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the agreement is not agreed to. mr. connolly: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 28 printed in part b of house report 115-711. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. chairman, i

have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 28 printed in part brn of house eport 115-711 offered by mr. o'halleran of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 918, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the entleman from the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. o'halleran: we need to act swiftly to clean up abandoned uranium mines in the southwestern united states. on the navajo nation alone there are over 500 abandoned mine sites that remain unaddressed and pose a danger to residents. many provide uranium to the u.s. atomic energy commission for defense activities between 1947 and 1970, putting them in the pursue of -- purview of the defense related uranium mines

program. while this program is working to inventory and assess sites, we must begin planning to clean the sites up this past week i was in cameron, arizona a community on the navajo nation that has been impacted by uranium mine. the town sits above the little colorado river and the mine sites are not far from the river whose water eventually flow into the grand canyon. in cameron, i heard sites about these sites have gone decades without necessary cleanup. at the same meeting i heard from community members and tribal leaders that sites like this are a growing concern across the navajo nation. these communities need us now, mr. chairman. across northern arizona, uranium mining has a toxic legacy and many of my constituents continue to fight cancers an diseases that were caused by radiation exposure decades ago. this exposure was so severe that congress went so far as to pass the radiation exposure

compensation act. today we understand these health risks and know risks and know that unaddressed sites pose a danger to public health and will continue to pose risks until they are rendered or reclaimed. in addition, in some community, abandoned mines are near water, near schools, or are places where livestock graze. the potential contamination of these areas that are so critical to our communities and our food and water resources is a serious issue that we have put off for too long. we must step up now and clean these sites. my amendment simply designates funding to expedite cleanup of sites through the defense related uranium mines program this amendment will ensure that we are doing our part to improve public health for communities in arizona and the southwest. it's pastime to turn the page on

the federal government's disgraceful failure to address this issue for the family affected spanning decades. i urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment on behalf of these families and their communities. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington state seek recognition? >> i rise to claim time in opposition though i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection. mr. newhouse: i appreciate my colleague's support for taking action on the mines that are a legacy of the cold war. the amendment does not change funding levels within the bill and i do not oppose the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields -- the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. o'halleran: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. 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 amendment number 29 printed in part b of housery port 115-711. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in part b of house report 115-711 offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 918, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i rise to offer an amendment that utilizes the lman rule to hold wapa administrator juan gabriel accountable. on his watch millions of taxpayer dollars were flushed down the drain while the culture of fear in the highest echelon of the agencies hid the true

nature of the misdeeds. wasteful and fraudulent edges pecks -- expenditures include ammunition, specialized weapons, including the purchase of $1,200 rifle scopes, an unauthorized a.t.v., john deere lawn trackor, rsonal clothing, accessories for personal cars, $102,000 to deck out motorcycles from shops an dealers an questionable expenditures from one employee at the -- to the tune of $50,000 per month. now in response, the western area power administration slow walked an investigation, covered up the fraud and intimidated anyone bold enough to call it out. a 14-year federal employee who once worked for the u.s. attorney's office told reporters, i quote, instead of aggressively going after corruption, wapa's bosses slow-walked the investigation, retall yailted against those who uncovered fraud and failed to protect them from threats, end

of quote. unfortunately, this me is not alone. a former wapa vice president for procurement went on record to state in his 30 years of federal service he had, quote, never seen anything like this and certainly had never felt unsafe at work until he worked at wapa on a daily bay circumstances end of quote. disturbingly, 20 complaints of violence in the workplace occurred over this elast three-year period. the mismanagement and corruption and culture is so bad at wapa that an independent condition sulltant did an assessment in late 2015 and found, quote, multiple employees reported having been threatened directly or heard others threatened regarding the current investigation. several indicated they had not bothered to report the incidents for reasons of fear or the belief upper management would not act. because of past failures to address these issues more seriously it is very likely the incidents will increase in

number and severity, end of quote. assessors also reported employees mentioned bosses who seek to intimidate employees, especially women, and who tolerate and perhaps promote an unacceptable behavior in their teams. equally trouble, administrator gabriel is routinely insubordinate as an agency head. he took a public position contrary to that of the current administration advocating for funding even though the budget proposal proposed to eliminate such funding. this commonsense amendment seeks to hold this rogue bureaucrat accountableth i'm pleased to have the support of freedom works, club for growth who is key voting the amendment, tea party pay portse, texas' michael o'sullivan, the grand canyon electric cooperative association, the sulfur springs

valley electric cooperative, arizona pork producers, new mexico's cattle grower's association, new mexico wool growers. numerous customers and federal employees no longer want mr. gabriel in charge, having understandably lost faith in his leadership. it is far pastime that the department of energy clean house and show this obama administration holdover the door. i commend the chairman and the committee for their efforts on this legislation and i urge support of the amendment and with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: claim time in opposition to my friend's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: i recognize my colleague's concerns about certain actions and pracktoifs the western power -- western area power administration and i applaud his dedication to improving the functionality of the agency for the benefit of his constituents. in fact, he has worked with this committee to make improvements related to appropriations and i would encourage him continue to engage with us on appropriate oversight measures this amendment though will not

improve the effectiveness and transparency of this agency. rather it is simply a punitive one toward one individual and i cannot support such an effort. that's why i oppose the holman rule that was adopted by the rules package, i guess, what, last year or something like that? year before last? the problem is you have an individual, there have been claims about his behavior or his inability to do his job. and we're going to debate whether he's going to have a salary or not or whether you're going to fire him. reduce the salary to $1. in a 10-minute debate on the floor. is that really fair? is that right? i don't think you should do that. if the activity that was been suggested by the gentleman from arizona have occurred, why doesn't the government oversight committee look at this? why aren't they calling in, having a hearing on it? why isn't the energy and

commerce committee doing the same? that's the appropriate way to do that when you've got someone who has misbehaved as an administrator. not to come on the floor with a 10-minute debate and make charges which may or may not be true, i don't know, but then ask us to essentially fire somebody. i just don't think that's right. for these reasons i must urge a no vote on this amendment and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserve. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: can i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. the current application of the holman rule authorizes three specific uses in an appropriation bill. reduction of amount of money in the bill. reduction of the salary of the officers of the united states or reduction of the compensation of any person paid out in the treasury of the united states. let's go back through this. look at this fraud. look at these 20 complaints of

violence. i've got to tell you, are you sure you want to defend this guy? inconceivable. inconceivable that we're going to allow this we owe it to the federal employees thunder gentleman to have an employment environment to be well taken care of. with that, i yield back any time and ask for the members to vote on behalf of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: nobody is defending this individual. what he's presented is 20 accusations. i think he ought to have his day before a proper hearing before the proper committee to decide if this is the right thing to do, not sit here and say i agree with these accusations. i don't know if they're true or not. nobody else on this floor knows whether they're true or not. with that i yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from ohio. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: i thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yield, i rise in opposition to this amendment not completely

understanding what it is the gentleman is objecting to. i know that you have an individual that you are upset about but you are from the state of arizona, am i correct? and you -- your state is under this western area power authority. and we don't have that sort of power umbrella in our region of the country so i've read about the fights in the west among all these western states, dozen and a half western state, arizona fights with california, california fights with washington, washington fights -- it's unbelievable. so i'm a little reluctant as a nonwesterner to believe anybody. until we get a proper tribunal to assess whether what you are saying is correct or not and for all i know, this man put some power in another state that hurt arizona, i don't know. but i look at the controversies out there and i just think that this amendment targets one

person and reduces their salary to $1. without any trial, without any tribunal. sort of reminds me of the way in which your side of the aisle hand they would firing of the chaplain and then because we finally tried to get some justice here he was brought on but you don't do this to people. we have a judicial process in this country and you have to go through the proper channels. so i think we have to focus on fair ways in which to adjudicate if there's something going on out there but i really question whether it's going on here is a fight between arizona and adjoining states. >> would the gentlelady yield? ms. kaptur: i yield. the chair: the time of the gentleman -- the gentleman from idaho can yield to you if he so desires. the time is yours, the gentlelady from ohio cannot yield. mr. simpson: i yield to the

gentleman. mr. gosar: the jurisdictional aspect of power from water across the west. this is fraud. this is workplace violence. 20 -- this has nothing to do with jurisdictional application of water or power. this is an unsafe application within the workplace. this is a bully at an agency who is doing unwanted things. we have an obligation, an absolute obligation to rein somebody in like this. that's what's wrong here. if we can't do this to a swamp creature of this magnitude, then what can we do mr. simpson: reclaiming my the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. simpson: that's what i reclaim, my expired time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. gosar: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be

ostponed. the chair: now in order to consider amendment number 30 printed in 15-711. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. keating: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 30 printed in part b of house report 115-711 offered by mr. keating of massachusetts. the chair: the pursuant to house resolution 918 the gentleman from massachusetts and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. keating: my amendment seeks to ensure adequate resources for the n.r.c. to provide for safe and effective decommissioning of nuclear power plants. in 2016, energy corporation, the owner and operator of the nuclear power plant in plymouth, massachusetts, announced that

the plant would be decommissioned after facing severe losses and plagued by safety concerns. since coming to concern, i'm concerned about the operations as well as the security of its spent fuel storage. i have worked with state and local representatives to prioritize the safety of the decommissioning process, security of the plant spent fuel and displacement of over 600 workers that are employed at the site. the n.r.c. has previously issued reports revealing that pill clam comes up short and currently the worst performing reactor in the entire country. while this infraction falls on the sponges built, it is important that the n.r.c. has the necessary resources to address concerns as they arise

including cooperation with local communities. s we have cited, nuclear power plants has an enormous impact. and decommissioning funds to ress tore ration, to remediation of the site and maintaining emergency preparedness and security resources throughout the entire process. t is my hope that the n.r.c. prioritizes worker protections both in my district and around the entire country. as a number of decommissioned plants increase, the potential exodus of highly skilled experienced workers precepts a serious threat. the people in my community rely on the workers to keep them safe and hope the n.r.c. will have

work force continuity throughout the decommissioning process. i thank my colleagues and urge support. thank you, mr. chairman and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. does any member seek time? the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. keating: i would like to thank the chairman from idaho who started the day working on issues from the pilgrims to the mayflower and the things that they never saw like decommissioning power plants. when we celebrate the anniversary in the town of plymouth, that he will be very welcomed and give him a personal

tour of the view of plymouth rock. thank you for your help and 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 massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. now in order to consider amendment number 31 printed in rt bmp of house report 115-711. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lowenthal: i rise as the beyer. of mr. buyer -- the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in part b of house

mr. t 115-711 offered by lowenthal. the chair: a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. low pressure loan this amendment preserves the national ocean policy. the national ocean policy is a commonsense way to facilitate collaboration on complex ocean issues and promotes economic opportunity and national security and environmental protection. i think we can all agree that we coastal ving ocean and ecosystems that promote the economic vie talts of our communities. this is doing exactly that with the northeastern region having completed its plan and the west coast and other regions well on their way. prohibiting the allocation of

funds to this important program will stifle collaboration among stakeholders on complex issues relating to national security, economic opportunity and ocean policy. i represent southern california and i know firsthand that we can have a thriving ocean economy and at the same time protect and conserving our presentation ocean resources. there are marine protected areas, state waters, federal waters and department of defense installations. spot, marine-life hot some of the best blue whale happens off our shore, we have a booming fishing sector and we ranch, we cultural have beautiful ranches and some

rigs are right near our shore. my district is home to the port of long beach which is the second busiest port in north america. it simply makes sense to have the navy at the table when noaa is working on citing of and makes sense to have the croum when oil rigs are being decommissioned and it's a no-brainer that n omp aa and ports work together to have these massive ships that can move in and out of our ports safely. the need for an overaftering policy only grows. sea-level rise are too big and too serious for any one community or agency to tackle alone. increased ack what culture

development are creating economic opportunities, but they must be thoughtfully implemented. the national ocean policy is the tool we have. right now, to promote smart shared use of our ocean resources. all of our districts benefit from our oceans, whether we represent coastal districts or not. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gosar: on july 19, 2010, president obama signed executive order and sought to implement a new ocean national ocean policy. according to the house committee on natural resources, in this action, he established a top-down washington dds-based

approval process that will hinder rather than promote and cost american jobs. this has the potential to create damage including fishing, mining, oil and natural gas, renewable energy and marine commerce. over 808 nag local organizations representing fishing, boating, mining, transportation and construction wrote to the chairman requesting a prohibition of funding for the imflex of the policy. our oceans are home to a variety of industries and it is critical we maintain our environments and maintain a robust economy. the national ocean policy represents the top-down approach and does not reflect the realities of our coastaler communities. our assets contribute billions

d it discourages the development the the fisheries and our coastal economy. policies like this turn outside. adding layers of permitting and consultation to regulated industries and subjects parties to exposure, we are seeing it where the users' groupsville resulted in litigation. this is the exact thing. years of implementation, this policy is incapable of stating its achievable goal. we need to keep our. the national ocean policy does the opposite. i strongly oppose this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the jearm reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: i yield one minute to my colleague from rhode island, mr. langevin.

the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. here's the bottom line. ocean planning works. and this is not a top-down approach. cean plans are initiatives where they collect data and work out differences. with ocean planning, we can use our waters wisely. we already finished our plans. many of my colleagues don't believe in this open discussion among stakeholders. but we have seen what happens when oceans are brought to the brink. speaks yes, sir are pushed to the edge of extinction and destroyed the ecosystem and baffles me that we debate this. this is to ensure local voices are heard and pass the waters on

to our next generation. i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. and i recognize and commend my colleague, senator whitehouse for his work in fighting for sustainable ocean policy. this is the right thing to do. regionally led and not a top-down approach and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. new osar: i yield to mr. house. mr. newhouse: i thank the gentleman from arizona. i'm supportive of the stated goals of the national ocean policy such as more interagencies coordination, there are mr troubling aspects here. this amendment strips underlying nguage that prohibits them using the national ocean policy

to encroach on inland activities. i have heard from farmers and irrigators from the northwest, concerned that ill-defined terms such as ecosystem management gives broud management to impact agriculture that has hundreds of miles from the pacific ocean. before imposing these burdens on farmers who feed on our ocean, it is necessary for congress to ensure that all affected stakeholders have a seat at the table. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. mr. gosar: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: i yield one minute of my time to my colleague from maine, ms. pingree.

the chair: the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: i rise in support of this amendment and i thank my colleague from california for california for yielding me this time. every year we have this battle. and it is to recognize the importance of our oceans and oceans' planning. it works and working in new england and atlantic and instead of arguing hypotheticals, we should talk about the story about what happens in regions like mine where we live and work on the ocean. the story of national ocean policy isn't national at all but local control and local input. in maine, we have great success, local communities and other stakeholders having regional plans. it is coordination all with the same goal of understanding our oceans, protecting them and working with them and in them.

by including those who work on the ocean, we are coordinating activities for efficiency. with the language, it would make it even more difficult for federal and state agencies and local agencies to work together. this rider has no place in this bill and i urge my colleagues to strike it and i yield back. . . the chair: the gentleman from california's time has expire. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson. mr. simpson: let me first state idaho is not next to an ocean, but we do have the biggest inland port in the country. you all made great arguments, arguments that should be held in the authorizing committee. the problem is the ocean policy was put in effect without ever

going through congress. never been authorized. it is not that it's been authorized and the expiration date just expired like many programs, far too many programs. this has never been authorized by congress. i might agree with you in the end. but it ought to go through the proper process instead of just doing the executive order. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. 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 visit. -- noes have it. the amendment is not adopted. >> mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from california will e postponed. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 115-711. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: thement number 32 printed in parse b of house report 115-711, offered by mr. kihuen of nevada. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 918, the gentleman from nevada, mr. kihuen and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada. mr. kihuen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to offer an amendment , the energy and water development an related agencies appropriations development act of 2019 this amendment, mr. chairman is very simple. it would strike language that would prohibit the closure of yucca mountain. this site sitz in my congressional district less than

100 miles away from las vegas a city that sees 42 million visitors each year. with many of these visitors coming from your districts. nevada depends on these visitors. nevada's economy depends on these visitors. put in a nuclear -- put agnew clear repository this close to so many americans is simply irresponsible and i have great concerns with the transportation of nuclear waste to yucca mountain and this project -- should this project move forward against the will of nevadans. mr. speaker, nevada has no nuclear energy producing facilities and it should not be the dumping ground for the rest of the country's nuclear waste. the bottom line is this. if your state generates nuclear waste, then you should keep it in your backyard. or if any of my colleagues are ok with sending nuclear waste to my state, then maybe they should consider keeping it in their own states. i'll be more than happy to work

with them on an amendment. the people of nevada do not want this nuclear waste stored in our backyard. yucca mountain needs to close. that's why i encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment. mr. speaker, i would like to yield as much time as she needs to my colleague from the first congressional district, deana titus. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. thank you, congressman if yielding. thank you for your leadership on this issue. earlier this evening, we heard from the distinguished member from illinois who continues to push the yucca or bust policy of the last 36 years. he claimed that that the nevada delegation is trying to circumvent the adjudication process to determine if nevada should be the dumping ground for the nation's highly radioactive

nuclear weas he said congress should reject another amendment to save $190 million from being thrown away on this fail proposal because we should let the licensing process play out without some preconceived outcome. well i'm sorry, but that's just more b.s. if they really believed that, he would be joining us in support of this amendment number 32 which strips the unnecessary policy rider that prohibits closing down the already shuttered yucca mountain. it predetermines that yucca mountain will be the nation's nuclear waste dump and handcuffs the administration from choosing another site regardless of what any studies show. if we are serious about solving this problem, we should change direction and allow consent-based siting. we could start that process today and right now by supporting this amendment.

yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. mr. kihuen: i yield back the remaineding -- remaining balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. > thank you, mr. chairman. mr. shimkus: again, mr. chairman, i thank my colleagues from nevada for allowing us to have this debate once. two weeks ago we had this debate on the floor of the house, had a pretty food vote, bipartisan vote, 340 of our colleagues supported continuing to move orward, 72 disagreed with that decision. and again this -- part of this

debate allows me to lay out think true facts. the facts are that this body and this nation decided 30-plus years ago to address a national problem with a national solution. and so we have been moving forward as a nation for 30 years. .0 years, $15 billion the most studied piece of ground on the planet. fortunately it's in the state of nevada. nevada can claim that they have he safest location for a geological repository, the nuclear regulatory commission in exhaustive research, i was wrong, it wasn't 1,000 pages, it's 1,928 pages, this is one of five volumes. and yes, the previous amendment was to say let's don't

adjudicate the difference my colleagues from nevada keep saying it's not safe. i trust our independent nuclear regulatory commission that says it's safe for a million years. the only way you resolve this is to follow the law and go through adjudication of the complaints. now the state of nevada doesn't want to go through adjudication because i believe that once the science is debated, the decision will be in line with the independent nuclear regulatory commission and their exhaustive research. now let's talk about this current amendment. what this current amendment does is just says let's disregard the will of 49 states and our territories and 30 years of law. to respond to the state of

nevada's opposition. not even scientifically based. so what does that mean? what it means is that spent nuclear fuel in the place of a nuclear that's got generating station between l.a. and san francisco on the pacific ocean, it stays right there. what that means for my colleague, dan newhouse from washington state, that the defense liability hanniford on the columbia river stays right there. from my friends in chicago, that nuclear power generating station on lake michigan stays right there. what about savanna river, the savanna river site? it stays right next to the savanna river. versus 90 miles away in the desert underneath a mountain on federal property. so when the local concern is

addressed about the local issue, the local consensus is really the department of interior. the department of defense. the department of energy. that federal land is larger than the state of connecticut. that's the local concern that we're dealing with and we're addressing here. this is all the operating commercial nuclear power plants. that's why there's 31 states, 121 locations. that's why this debate is important because more and more as we are able to lay out the facts the consensus by the national media is that it is time to move forward and finish the project. whether that's "the washington post," the "san diego union-tribune", the akin standard.

"los angeles times." chicago tribune. my colleagues, i understand the "not in my backyard" but there's more nuclear spent fuel in chicago, illinois, in chicagoland , in chicagoland, not 90 miles away, in chicago -- and chicago has 55 million visitors. not 33 million. more than las vegas. so it's not going to hurt your tourism. actually it's going to help diversify the economy. we understand the argument debate. thank you for letting me address this again in this chamber so that we can fully not only educate our colleagues but move the nation forward. i yield backment -- i yield back. the chair: 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.

he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 33 printed in art b of house report 115-711. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. newhouse: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 33 printed in part b of house report 115-711 offered by mr. newhouse of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 918, the gentleman from washington, mr. newhouse, and a member opposed, each will control phi minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. chairman. rise to offer an amendment on a critical matter for the bonneville power administration and our nation's other power marketing administrations, or the p.m.a.'s. including southwestern power administration and the western

area power administration as well as the tennessee valley authority or the t.v.a. the president's fiscal year 2019 budget request released earlier this year included a misfwided proposal to sell the transmission asset these entities. it is unfortunate this proposal was offered once again as the matter was met with resound regular jackson by congress last year when it was offered in the fiscal year 2018 budget request. the sale of these assets would result in the federal government abandoning a successful and efficient solution for providing affordable power to rural, urban, and tribal communities across the country. this one-time federal debt reduction proposal would create energy production and delivery issues for my constituents as costs would inevitably rise. mr. chairman, this ill-advise prod posal is once again a federal attempt to fix something

that is not broken. i fully support efforts to improve energy infrastruck schur across the nation, however, i do not believe that this should come at the expense of existing infrastructure. infrastructure that successfully fills a need where market-based pricing would not be sustainable. my constituents, especially in rural communities, depend on the bonneville power administration to provide stable and affordable electricity service. di vesting b.p.a.'s assets would create needless uncertainty for regional energy markets and rate payers in central washington. in a climate where b.p.a. continues to face unnecessary challenges, whether it's from the imprudent federal proposal to move to market based rates or to the incessant use of litigation brought forward by radical environmentalists for the past three decades, i offer this amendment which simply

prohibits any funds from being used to sell the transmission assets of the three p.m.a.'s and the t.v.a. mr. chairman, i come before the house today as a champion for the bonneville power administration and advocate for public power and a steadfast representative for rate payers across central washington state. the greater pacific northwest, and the entire nation. i encourage the administration to listen to this resounding bipartisan message that i bring along with my colleagues today. we reject this proposal and prohibit the di vestment of the assets. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the chair: the gentleman reserves. does anyone seek time in pposition? the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to give 30 seconds to theoo