Account was 36 million below the president s budget request in the bill brought to the floor and amendments already passed by the house have resulted in further cuts to the departmental administration. Federal salaries for the Nuclear Security administration are 30 million below this president s request. The funding levels in this bill send a clear message about growth in the federal work force requiring an automatic 5 cut across the board is a step too far and as i said it is not good government. For these reasons, i oppose these amendments, urge my colleagues to vote against it. I would note that when the gentleman says during the Government Shutdown they furloughed 60 of the work force, that was 16 days. These employees were labeled as nonessential. Same thing happened in congress. I would suspect in your congress, at least i know in my office, we had to declare which employees were nonessential. Those employees now work for me again and are rehired. I suspect they are in your office too. Just because they were furloughed in a 16day Government Shutdown doesnt mean they are essentially nonessential. So i dont think this is a well thought out amendment and would oppose it and urge my colleagues to oppose it. The chair does the gentleman reserve . Mr. Simpson im happy to yield to the gentlelady. The chair the gentlelady from ohio. Ms. Kaptur i rise to join the chairman in opposing this amendment. It truly is a blunt cut, no analysis, no consulting a, no consideration of impact. Just a blunt cut. It would mean about 700 people who would be fired at headquarters, at field offices, even at our Power Marketing administration across the west. Layoffs of this magnitude would profoundly impede the department of energys ability to oversee its Nuclear Security responsibilities, science and energy and environmental cleanup mandates. So i strenuously oppose this amendment and would urge the gentleman to bring back a more thoughtful amendment at some point if he wishes but i dont support the blunt cut and yield back to the gentleman, the chame of the subcommittee. The chair the gentleman from idaho. Mr. Simpson i yield back. The chair the gentleman from florida. I appreciate the chairman and Ranking Members opposition but i remind them this is a necessary step in reducing the size of the government. Were approaching 20 trillion. When we talked about nonessential employees i didnt have in any any in my office, everybody in my office is essential so we didnt lay anybody off. The gentleman laughs, but thats fine. The executive departments and agencies have gradually taken personification of the 1984 horror flick the blob. Departments like d. O. E. Are consuming everything in their path and increasing their own presence in the private sector. At what point do we say, enough is enough. At what point do we say, were going to get our spending under control. This is a small, 5 incremental change to department of energy. Its not specific because it gives the flexibility to the department to come up with the changes that they want to, keeping in mind that our federal governments number one task is National Security. So the people that are tasked to run the department of energy can make the commonsense and needed reforms that they need. Again in the private sector, you see the Major Companies changing and laying off people as they need to. Government continues to grow and it adds not just Discretionary Spending but also to the mandatory spending that go into the Social Security and retirement. We have a responsibility to the American People and the future generations to fix the problems at hand instead of giving rhetoric and saying, well, its not specific enough. We need to stand up and say, the time is now. If we start now with small, incremental changes, we can change the direction of our nations debt while we still have the option because the day will come when we dont have that option with our controlled, with our out of control spending. Im asking my colleagues, if you want to change the debt structure in this country and get a handle on it, its time we start now and stop talking about it and i urge people to support this and i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back his time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the noes visit. He amendment is not agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment, number 7 at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. Clerk the chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk at the end of the bill before the short title insert the follow, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of energy for the Experimental Program to stimulate competitive research. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman from illinois and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. Foster. Mr. Foster thank you. I yield myself as much time as i may consume. The chair the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. Mr. Foster i rise today to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and my colleague, congressman scot fware rhett, my republican cochair of the payer states caucus a group of members opposed to the massive transfer of wealth between one set of states to another. This amendment is a very simple one that would prohibit any of the funds in this bill from being used in the Experimental Program to stimulate competitive esearch otherwise known as epscor. It was started in 1978 as a program in hopes of strengthening Research Infrastructure in areas of the couldntly that receive less than their fair share, however thats defined. As a scientist and an american i think it is a fine goal but the implementation of this program and the norm las used to earmark grants to a specific set of states is absurd. The ability to participate in epscor opportunities to based solely on whether or not a state of eceived less than. 75 the n. S. F. Research funding in the previous three years. Let me reiterate that. The department of energy epscor eligible is determined by how much n. S. F. Funding a given state has received in the previous three years. Theres no rational basis for earmarking a Grant Program in one area of spending based on the spending in another unrelated program. Moreover, because epscor considers the funding on a per state basis rather than a per capita bea sis, then it has devolved into just another one of the many programs that steers money into states that already get far manufacturer than their air share of federal spending. Epscor is emblematic of a larger problem we have in this country. Every year, hundreds of billions of dollars are transferred out of states that pay far more in federal taxes than they receive back in federal spending. The payer states. And into states that receive a lot more federal spending than they pay back in tax, etaker states. In the case of illinois our economy loses 40 billion a year because we pay far more in federal taxes than federal than we receive back in federal spending my colleague from new jersey, his state on a per capita basis, has it even worse. This alone is responsible for the fiscal stress in both of our states. This is an enormous and unjustifiable redistribution of wealth between the states. This amendment takes a first small step to begin rolling back these taker state preferences by eliminating one of the many, but one of the most unjustifiable of them, the Epscor Program. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from idaho, for what purpose does he seek recognition. I appreciate the gentlemans passion for the office of science, im a supporter of the office of science. The office of science directs Important Research funding to e National Laboratories, the Epscor Program extends this further by extending research where there has historically been less funding. Its been laying the foundation in basic sciences across the nation. Taking away this funding puts existing grants and partnerships in jeopardy at the many universitys that receive epscor grants. Therefore i must oppose this amendment and urge other members to do the same and i would yield to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. Cicilline. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Cicilline i thank the chairman for yield, i rise in opposition to this amendment which would eliminate funding for the dp of energy Epscor Program. For more than 40 year, the department of energy has provided academic Research Funding to colleges around the nation thats been critical to Ongoing Research thats essential to maintaining our Competitive Edge and energy advancement. He d. O. E. s program, epscor is a sciencedriven, merit based program Whose Mission is to help balance allocation of d. O. E. And other federal research and Development Funding to avoid undue concentration of money to only a few states. This Successful Program has had a profound impact on my home state of rhode island, allowing our academic institutions to increase research capacity, enrich the experience of their students and contribute to important advances in a variety of fields. Currently 24 states, including rhode island, and three jurisdictions account for only 6 of all d. O. E. Funding despite the fact that they account for 0 of think u. S. Population. Epscor helped stabilize this imbalance in funding and should couldnt to do so in the 2017 fiscal year and beyond. Help ensure a to we should take advantage of the knowledge and experience of academic institutions from every state this amendment would be a step backwards in the United States commitment to research and development. Programs like this are necessary to creating jobs, maintaining our Competitive Edge. I urbling my colleagues to join me in strongly opposing this amendment and i thank the chairman for yielding. I yield back. Mr. Simpson i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from illinois. Mr. Foster could i inquire how much time i have remaining . The chair the gentleman has two minutes. Mr. Foster i would like to emphasize that this doesnt take away funding from the office of science, it eliminates a setaside a poorly designed setaside based on spending thats completely unrelated to the Actual Office of science. If the goal of this program were to equalize the funding in the of the office of science then it should be base theend Actual Expenditures of the office of science. So states that are underrepresented there would presumably be able to call the for these. It does not do that. Ifs of designed to equalize spending between states that receive a lot more federal funding than those that dont, then youd see a very Different Number of states. Set of states on this. Particularly the fact that its not based on a per capita basis is the fundamental flaw in this thing. If you look at those state the single distinguishing characteristic, not that theyre small or sorry, not that theyre poor or rural or anything else, its that they have small populations. Which means that they are overrepresented in the senate. One of the main mechanisms for transferring wealth out of large states like new jersey, like illinois, like california, larbling number of other states, into smaller states are spending formulas that have frankly been cook up in the senate where theres a basic state, small states are overrepresented and the formulas steer large amounts of money into them. If this was based on a per capita basis it would at least be rational. If the office of science funding was based on Actual Expenditures at least in the department of energy, it would be rational. What we see are states receiving epscor funds that get far more than their share both in federal funding an of department of Energy Funding overall. A rational program would first off collect all funding, all Research Funding in all areas and base the setasides on that and second do, it on a per capita basis. These are fundamental flaws and at this point it is preferable to just eliminate the entire program and start over if people think its a useful thing. Thank you and i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. The chair the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from idaho. Mr. Simpson i appreciate the gentlemans arguments. It sounds like were back at the constitutional convention. Should we have a legislative branch of government be represented by the population or should it be represented by the states . I know, lets compromise. Lets have two bodies. One that represents the states with an equal number from each state and one that reps the population. Well call one the house of representatives and one the senate. Thats how it works out. We are one nation. And we try make sure that funds go to all states. Some of them have a disadvantage just by the sheer size and if you look at idaho, were the 12th largest state and i suspect population wise were down there substantially. Montana is probably worse off than we are. So its almost impossible for the universities and so forth to compete with some of the larger states. So we can argue about whether the formulas are correct or absolutely correct or should be modify or anything else like that im more than willing to do that but to eliminate the program i think is as me take. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. The chair the gentleman yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The chair the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Foster request a recorded vote. E chair proceedings will be postponed. For what purpose does gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk before the short title insert the following, none of the funds made available by this agget may be used in contravention of the illegal u. S. C. Of 199 , 8 the chair pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman rom tennessee and a member posed will each control 10 minutes. Mrs. Black sanctuary cities put our laws. And kate steinle to see the danger to ignore the federal immigration policy. We cannot allow this to stand. Im introducing this amendment to the appropriations bill that would ban funding to any state or city that refuses to comply with our immigration laws. I recognize and some of my colleagues say it is better suited on the hart and indeed, i join my colleagues, congressman gosar on a letter to the subcommittees asking similar language be attached to their bills as well. But the truth is amnesty for law breakers impact our jobs, our security and in the case of miss life. Teinle an innocent this is due to a response and this can be. If cities choose to put their cities at risk in defiance of federal law, there is no reason to continue spending federal money on their energy and water projects. It is that simple. I urge my colleagues to take a vote and support this common sense amendment the chair anyone wish to speak in opposition. The gentlelady from ohio. Ms. Kaptur i claim time in opposition. The black amendment would prohibit Financial Assistance to any state that is acting in contravention of the responsibility act. But this is an energy and water bill. This is nt a part of our bill. I rise in opposition to the mendment because it is frankly nongermane. The department of energy isnt involved or the army of corps engineers or the as that are under the jurisdiction of this bill have nothing to do. Why are we debateing immigration policy on energy and water appropriation bill . Doesnt make any sense. Frankly, the amendment would prohibit funding for state and local funding against the sharing of information related to immigration status but state and federal Law Enforcement share information with i. C. E. That is used to determine immigration status and do it through the system that share these metrics. So even if this amendment were germane, i dont think the amendment is necessary or would do. Even more to the point if the premise of the amendment if local Law Enforcement agencies arent notifying i. C. E. , then the amendment is misguided because the department of Homeland Security has established a priority enforcement program, designed to better work with state and local Law Enforcement to take aliens before they are released in our communities and prior to that programs establishment, 337 jurisdictions refused to honor some or all of i. C. E. Detainers. 277 of those jurisdiction or 73 have signed up to participate in that program by responding to i. C. E. Requests honoring requests or both. The department of Homeland Security is making Good Progress and in the program. And we should support them in those efforts and avoid muddling the issue and reject the amendment the department of Homeland Security is not a part of the Appropriations Energy and water subcommittee and it is doubtful this amendment would have any effect. Even if it were germane to the bill and subject to a point ever order. This is in effect across the country, no one refuses to share information. It is difficult to see how this amendment wo