[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 23, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3119-H3123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5427, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 109-479) on the resolution (H. Res. 832)
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5427) making
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, which was referred
to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 832 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 832
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5427) making appropriations for energy and
water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2007, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived except for section 102. During consideration of the
bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises
and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation
that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider
the resolution?
=========================== NOTE ===========================
May 23, 2006--On Page H3119 under H. Res. 832, the following
appeared: The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House
consider the resolution?
The online version should be corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro
tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider the
resolution?
========================= END NOTE =========================
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the House agreed to consider the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 832 is an
open rule providing 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R.
5427, The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2007.
Under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by
paragraph.
House Resolution 832 waives points of order against provisions of the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting
unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an
appropriations bill except as specified in the resolution. The rule
authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who
have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The House Rules Committee reported by voice vote an open rule for
consideration of H.R. 5427, The Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act of 2007. The underlying bill provides over $30
billion to the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, the
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation and several
independent agencies.
The underlying bill provides nearly $5 billion to support vigorous
civil works programs that focus limited resources on completing high-
priority projects. The Department of Energy constitutes the bulk of the
bill with funding of over $24.3 billion. Included in the Department of
Energy's budget is over $4 billion for the American Competitiveness
Initiative to strengthen basic research by increasing funding for the
Department of Energy's Office of Science.
The bill also supports the Advanced Energy Initiative by increasing
money for a variety of clean energy technologies including biomass,
hydrogen, solar, wind, and clean coal.
Mr. Speaker, this bill also includes funding important many projects
in my central Washington district. After getting the Bureau of
Reclamation engaged in funding solutions for the depletion of the
Odessa Subaquifer 2 years ago, I am pleased that this bill continues
the effort to ensure the Federal Government keeps its commitment to the
Columbia Basin farmers at risk of losing their water supply.
For the fifth straight year, I am pleased that the funds are provided
to keep the study of additional water storage in the Yakima River Basin
moving forward towards completion. 2007 is a critical year for this
study and this gives the Bureau the funds needed to keep it on schedule
to get the study done by 2008.
Having authored the law that created the study, I am dedicated to
ensuring it stays on course. No storage has been built in this Yakima
River Basin since
[[Page H3120]]
the mid-1930s. And after several serious droughts in the last 5 years,
it is vital that this study provide answers on more storage.
Over $24 million is provided for 2007 to ensure 1,000 Federal lab
scientists and workers continue their important work at the Pacific
Northwest National Lab. The funds are needed to transition the lab
personnel into new lab buildings. Some lab buildings dating back to the
mid-1940s are slated for demolition and cleanup due to radioactive
contamination of the structures, soil and ground water. With
coordination and planning, this transition can possibly be accomplished
in a manner that could save the taxpayers over $100 million.
Within the Department of Energy, the Office of Environmental
Management is responsible for the cleanup at the Nation's nuclear
sites. The largest and most contaminated of these sites is Hanford in
my district. This bill provides needed Hanford cleanup funds for the
River Corridor Closure project, the K Basins and other projects managed
by the Richland Operations Office. An increase of $20 million is
provided for ground water contamination cleanup and technology
development.
At Hanford's Office of River Protection, $20 million is restored to
the tank farm budget for the bulk vit demonstration project. This
funding is necessary for DOE to confirm alternative treatments for
millions of gallons of hazardous and radioactive tank waste.
Mr. Speaker, the largest component of Hanford's budget is the waste
treatment plant. This project is critical to the Federal Government's
obligation to uphold its legal cleanup commitments to the State of
Washington. For well over a year this project has been undergoing
extensive review by the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and GAO.
In addition, an independent group of the Nation's best and brightest
nuclear and construction experts have been looking into the project's
technical issues and estimates of the projects costs and schedule.
These reviews are providing both recommendations and validations that
will assist the Department of Energy in setting a path forward for this
project.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, and expectation that DOE will provide a
detailed plan for the waste treatment plant before Congress writes a
final conference report on the energy and water appropriations act for
this year. A final path forward from DOE is critical for making
decisions on this project for next year and for the future.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress enough the importance of Congress
getting this information from DOE in a timely manner.
I also want to thank the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member
for the time and attention they have dedicated to the waste treatment
facility, specifically into preparing a bill that enjoyed strong
bipartisan support in the subcommittee and full Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 832 is an open rule that gives all
Members a chance to express their views on how our Nation should be
prioritizing its spending. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and
the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding me this time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today we consider the rule governing debate
for the energy and water appropriations bill. The issues of energy and
water are always important, but this year these issues are front and
center of our national dialogue.
Over the past 9 months, the American people have seen the direct
impact of water infrastructure on their day-to-day lives, from
Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans and the gulf coast to
the worst flooding the New England States have experienced in 70 years,
and just this week NOAA announced the upcoming hurricane season will
bring an increase in strong storms reaching land, category 3 and above.
In our communities, in our States, and every region of our country we
are seeing the importance of flood protection. But we are also
witnessing the growing strain on our already fragile water
infrastructure. Yet even with this added pressure, our Nation's civil
works programs do not see a corresponding increase in funding. These
projects provide critical protections and we need to make investing in
them a priority.
On repeated occasions you have heard me discuss the critical need to
improve flood protection in my hometown of Sacramento.
{time} 2130
In terms of lives and property, I recognize what is at stake.
Sacramento has the dubious distinction of being the most at-risk river
city in the Nation. I certainly understand the heightened concern that
arrives with each rainfall. This year, our region has experienced an
especially wet winter and wet spring. Each year we delay making these
necessary investments is one more year of wondering what Mother Nature
will bring.
Members of the committee attempted to make the most with its limited
resources. They did improve on the President's budget. However, as
Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Obey and Energy and Water
Subcommittee Ranking Member Visclosky rightly pointed out, we still
need an additional $250 million to protect vulnerable areas from
flooding.
With these funds, the Army Corps of Engineers could speed up
construction on a number of flood protection projects across the
country. Additionally, they would be able to provide some support to
the operation and maintenance of completed projects, as well as restore
the Corps' research and development program.
As a Nation, we are at a crossroads. We can continue in a defensive
position, responding to Mother Nature's whims as in New Orleans and
recent storms in the northeast, or we can take the offensive, working
to strengthen and reinforce our Nation's water infrastructure.
In my view, we must seek out opportunities like this to be proactive
and not reactive, as Congress is beginning to do in science and
investing in renewable energy sources.
I was pleased that the committee increased funding from last year's
level for the Department of Energy's Office of Science. This will fund
basic energy research, nuclear physics, as well as biological and
environmental sciences. A 15 percent increase is a good start, but if
we truly want to reverse the trend of the past few years, we need to
make a greater investment in science and research and development.
I was home in Sacramento this past weekend and everyone was talking
about rising gas and energy prices. The net effect for working families
is perhaps a shorter vacation and perhaps not eating out at a
restaurant. Escalating energy prices threaten not only the quality of
life and pocketbook of every American but the very stability of our
national economy.
We must do more as a Nation to develop energy alternatives. I believe
that America must modernize its energy policy to decrease this Nation's
dependence on foreign sources of oil and preserve the environment. To
accomplish this, Congress must develop a strategic and forward-looking
energy plan that places a high priority on new research into renewable
fuels and greater energy efficiency.
Unfortunately, the programs this bill cut are the exact programs
necessary to develop a national renewable energy portfolio for the 21st
century. There are drastic reductions in funding for wind, solar and
geothermal programs, some of the programs that must be grown if we are
ever going to curb our reliance on oil. I am concerned that we are
missing an opportunity to expand our energy alternatives.
As much as this Energy and Water Appropriations bill is about funding
current needs, it is also about investing in the future. While I think
the committee tried to the best of their abilities to do this, in the
end, the tight funding constraints limited their ability to strike the
necessary balance.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my colleague on the
Rules Committee.
[[Page H3121]]
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support of
the rule for the Energy and Water Appropriations Act.
I wish to commend Chairman Hobson and the subcommittee for crafting
in a very bipartisan way an excellent bill. This bill does contain
funding for water and resource-related projects in my district and my
State, and I think that it is very wise of them, but it also deals with
one specific issue I wish to address this evening.
Chairman Hobson has recognized in this bill the importance of having
a very strong nuclear power program in the United States. As Americans
continue to face the increasing costs of energy, nuclear power is an
important part of our overall energy policy. Chairman Hobson has
craftily connected the concept of interim storage with reprocessing of
fuel rods, recognizing that spent fuel rods really are not spent at
all. The overwhelming majority of the rod is still fuel that is
available, and through reprocessing of the spent fuel rods, we can not
only create greater energy, but we will significantly reduce the
problem of a waste stream.
During last year's debate, I engaged Chairman Hobson on the floor in
a colloquy on this issue. He said at that time: ``I do not see any
reason for the Secretary to consider making a private site, or a site
on tribal land, into a DOE site for interim storage. My intent is for
the Secretary to evaluate storage options at existing DOE sites.''
I appreciate very much that his subcommittee has taken these words to
heart and has crafted in this bill a process which ensures that the
interim storage of nuclear waste will be done in conjunction with
willing partners.
Specifically in this bill, there are some additional criteria for
interim storage in the report language. It talks about the department,
and it says they will ``explore consolidation of spent fuel within
States with high volumes of spent fuel. The Department should conduct a
voluntary, competitive process to select interim storage sites.''
The key word here obviously is the word ``voluntary.'' Chairman
Hobson added this important phrase and clearly understands that it is
far wiser and better to voluntarily work with States than to try to
impose mandates on States. That not only protects the rights and
positions of States in our Federal State, but it is clearly a wiser
policy of choice.
This bill reinforces the statements and the commitments that the
chairman has made on this issue, this year, last year and repeatedly in
other venues, and I appreciate him doing that. State and local
officials in my State, military in my State, environmental groups and
citizens in my State are encouraged with these particular words.
Once again, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman
Hobson and the entire subcommittee, both sides of the aisle, for
protecting what I consider to be in an important way the citizens of my
State and ensuring that State and local interests are paramount in this
particular process. I think you have done a fine job, and I am proud to
speak in favor of this particular bill and especially the rule which
will put it before us.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding and
her kind remarks and also at the outset would congratulate the
gentleman from Washington for his leadership and dogged determination
to follow through on very complicated issues relative to Hanford, not
only on behalf of the constituents he represents in his district or the
State of Washington, but to make sure that we in a timely fashion have
a solution to a national problem, and I do respect the gentleman's
leadership.
Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Water bill that will be before us
tomorrow is an excellent bill, and Mr. Hobson and the members of the
subcommittee have done an exceptional job on it. I will be strongly
supporting the bill. However, I rise now because it simply does not do
enough, given the restricted allocation that the subcommittee had to
deal with.
That is why I am asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question
on the rule so that I may offer an amendment to the Energy and Water
Development Appropriation bill. Last week, in the full Appropriations
Committee, Mr. Obey proposed an alternative set of 302(b) allocations
that include $1 billion more for the Energy and Water bill. My
amendment would propose that the same increase to this bill be given
and show how the Democratic Members of the House would allocate the
additional spending.
Over 25 years ago, during the Carter administration, the country
faced a major energy crisis. The Congress responded aggressively.
Today, I believe our response is a faint shadow of what had been done
previously. Today, our spending levels for research and development and
demonstration for fossil fuels, renewable energy sources and
conservation are about one-quarter of what they were then. The
amendment would provide an additional $750 million across these areas.
Some examples of this increased investment in energy innovation are:
A doubling of funding for biofuels and biorefineries so that
researchers can pursue the full range of biomass technologies and
develop new ones;
Provide the Clean Coal Program with enough funding so that they can
issue the next major solicitation of innovative proposals for making
better use of this abundant domestic energy source;
To restore funding for petroleum, natural gas and geothermal
technology programs for which the administration and the bill provide
virtually no funds;
Increase support for developing the full range of conservation
technologies;
Weatherization for an additional 30,000 homes in the year 2007, next
year, providing immediate energy savings;
The establishment of a DARPA-like program in DOE for advanced energy
research projects to stimulate innovation that can change the paradigms
for how we obtain and use energy, much as DARPA investments in
networking help create the Internet.
Relative to our water infrastructure, Hurricane Katrina was a wake-up
call, and while we are providing much funding for this stricken area,
flood protection is needed in many other areas of our country. The
amendment would also provide $250 million more to accelerate needed
improvements to flood control measures around the country. It would
also increase operation and maintenance funding for two regions and
partially restore the cuts to the R and D program for the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Our country needs this $1 billion increase to this year's investments
to ensure our future safety and prosperity. Given that there will be
additional needs in the future, I would not borrow the money for these
investments from our children and grandchildren. So they must be paid
for now, and to do that, the amendment would provide that those making
in excess of $1 million in 2007 give up 2.42 percent of the tax cuts
provided to them since 2000. I think the country will miss these
investments in our common good more than the most prosperous among us
will miss two-tenths of their ample income.
Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that my proposal would have been made in
order under the rule. I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous
question so that this amendment can be debated and voted upon by the
full House.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I, first of all, want to thank the ranking member for
his kind words, and I also want to thank him and the chairman of the
subcommittee a little broader because they have taken a great deal of
interest in the Hanford project. Both of them have been out there at
least once in the past several years, and other Members of the
subcommittee have visited that, and I want to bring that to the House's
attention because the one common denominator I hear when people go out
and visit the Hanford site is, I had no idea it was that huge and that
complex. I think that understanding helps us move forward.
But I do want to reiterate and I do hope the Department of Energy
does come forward with their path before we finally get the final
conference report. I think that it is important.
Having said that, on the Rules Committee, we did not make the
gentleman's amendment in order because it
[[Page H3122]]
calls for raising taxes, and that is a province of the Ways and Means
Committee, and obviously, they do want to keep that jurisdiction. We
did not provide the waiver, and therefore, that amendment was not made
in order.
I also mention, too, the amendment was offered during the markup in
the full Appropriations Committee, and it was defeated by the
Appropriations Committee.
So I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, but I just wanted to make
those observations.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make some comments also
that I appreciate Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for
working with me on my project in Sacramento. That is much appreciated.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I think in general, within the
spectacularly inadequate allocation provided the subcommittee, that Mr.
Hobson and Mr. Visclosky have done a very credible job on this bill,
and I especially appreciate the way Mr. Hobson has approached this bill
on a bipartisan basis.
Having said that, I would hope that Members would vote against the
previous question on the rule. As Mr. Visclosky pointed out, for the 25
years since Jimmy Carter left office, this country has been in a
listless drift as far as energy policy is concerned. Energy
conservation, energy research programs, have been funded at woefully
low levels in comparison to where they were during the high point of
Jimmy Carter's presidency.
The problem is that, after Carter left office, his successors,
especially Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, systematically shrank those budgets
in real terms, and so today, we are paying the price in terms of scarce
energy and high energy prices.
We have some choices to make. The Congress has already determined
this year, the majority party has, that it is important this year to
provide $40 billion in supersized tax cuts to people who make over $1
million a year.
{time} 2145
In contrast, Mr. Visclosky would offer an amendment which would scale
back the size of those tax cuts by 2\1/2\ percent and use that money
instead to make greater investments totaling $1 billion more than the
bill contains for flood control projects and especially for energy
conservation and energy development programs.
If we had done that over the past 25 years, if we had simply kept up
with what Jimmy Carter had asked us to do while he was President, we
would be in a far more secure place as a Nation tonight and we would
have a far more stable pricing system for energy, and we would be much
further along the way toward protecting Mother Earth from the ravages
of global warming.
So I would hope that the House would vote against the previous
question so that we would have an opportunity to resurrect the
Visclosky amendment. I do believe that it is important to ask the
question: What is more valuable to the country's future, stronger
levees in our communities, stronger flood control projects, an energy
policy that puts us ahead of the curve rather than at the mercy of
OPEC, or an even easier Easy Street for the most well-off people in
this society?
I think the choice is obvious.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from
California I have no more requests for time, so I will reserve my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I rise to
oppose this rule, and I must express my very deep concern with the
underlying bill.
Despite the very best efforts of many of my colleagues, this bill
remains a broken promise on the most critical issues that we confront,
specifically renewable energy. The gentleman from Indiana is absolutely
correct, we need to do much more than we are doing in this bill on
renewable energy.
Let me tell you why this is so critical, Mr. Speaker. This year, the
Department of Defense will spend $10 billion on its basic energy bill.
Of that $10 billion, $4.7 billion will buy one thing: fuel for the Air
Force planes. That $4.7 billion is about what we are going to spend for
the National Cancer Institute.
We need renewable energies, Mr. Speaker, not just for our
environment, not just to bring gas prices down, but as a matter of
national security. What could be more dysfunctional than having to
borrow money from China in order to buy oil from our Persian Gulf
adversaries in order to fuel airplanes to protect us from China and our
Persian Gulf adversaries?
On renewable energies, this bill, as it is currently drafted, falls
short. Last July, we passed an energy bill, and many of us printed
press releases patting ourselves on the back for this sweeping new
investment in renewable energy. Those press releases promised $3.3
billion would be spent on renewable energies this year alone, $3.3
billion authorized for research, development, and deployment of
renewable energy. But when it comes time to actually sign the check,
the check doesn't say $3.3 billion, it says $1.3 billion. That is $2
billion short.
This is like No Child Left Behind all over again. You promise to pay
high, you actually pay low. In this case, it is not Leave No Child
Behind; pit is Leave No Barrel of Oil Behind.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the argument can be made, and I
respect the argument, that many renewable technologies did receive
increases over last year. Many specific accounts for renewable energy,
research and development did receive increases over last year's levels.
But only in Washington can a $2 billion shortfall be called an
increase.
Try that logic with your utility company. When the bill comes, try
saying I know I was going to pay $100, $150, but what I really meant to
say was, I am giving you $15. No utility company would let you get away
with it, and the Congress shouldn't allow that to be gotten away with.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is the bottom line. And if we are truly
serious about ending our dependence on foreign oil and strengthening
our military, we would not be shortchanging this bill. I hope that the
gentleman's efforts prevail. I hope that this Congress will have an
opportunity to put our money where our mouths are when it comes to
renewable energy, not just as an environmental issue, not just to get
gas prices down, but to make sure our military has the capabilities to
defeat our enemies around the world.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule
so that we can consider the Visclosky amendment that was rejected in
the Rules Committee tonight on a straight party-line vote.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the Visclosky amendment would provide $250
million for a number of ongoing flood projects that are not funded in
the bill. It also adds $750 million for research into alternative
sources of energy, such as coal, ethanol, and biodiesel, that would
reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. The spending
increase in the Visclosky amendment is offset by reducing by 2.4
percent the tax cut received by people earning more than $1 million a
year.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment deals with two urgent national
priorities. It puts our money where our mouth is when we say our
country needs to diversify our energy supply, increase energy
efficiency, and reduce our addiction to foreign oil. With the hurricane
season approaching, it puts more resources into the major flood control
projects that would protect our property and our lives.
Mr. Speaker, it is important for Members to know that a ``no'' vote
will not prevent us from considering the energy and water appropriation
bill under an open rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote
on the Visclosky amendment.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
[[Page H3123]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the resolution.
This is a fair rule. It is an open rule and allows Members to come
down to the floor and prioritize and reprioritize the spending under
the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res.__, Rule for H.R. 5427 the Energy & Water
Appropriations for FY 2007
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order and before
any other amendment if offered by Representative Visclosky of
Indiana or a designee. The amendment is not subject to
amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for
a division of the question in the committee of the whole or
in the House.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
Amendment to Energy and Water Appropriations bill, 2007 Offered by Mr.
Visclosky of Indiana
Page 2, line 20, strike ``$128,000,000'' and insert
``$132,000,000''.
Page 3, line 12, strike ``$1,947,171,000'' and insert
``$2,175,171,000''.
Page 6, line 10, strike ``$2,195,471,000'' and insert
``$2,213,471,000''.
Page 6, line 14, strike ``$297,043,000'' and insert
``$306,043,000''.
Page 7, line 3, strike ``$141,113,000'' and insert
``$150,113,000''.
Page 21, line 5, strike ``$2,025,527,000'' and insert
``$2,525,527,000''.
Page 21, line 6, before the period, insert the following:
``, of which not less than $150,000,000 shall be for funding
new advanced energy research''.
Page 22, line 1, strike ``$558,204,000'' and insert
``$808,204,000''.
Page 22, line 2, strike ``$54,000,000'' and insert
``$80,000,000''.
Page 22, line 13, strike ``$36,400,000'' and insert
``$200,400,000''.
At the end of title V, insert the following:
Sec. __. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of
$1,000,000, for the calendar year beginning in 2007, the
amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of Public
Law 107-16, Public Law 108-27 and Public Law 108-311 shall be
reduced by 2.42 percent.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
for the previous question, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________