[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 66 (Wednesday, May 24, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3190-H3208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 832 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5427.

                              {time}  1812


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 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, with Mr. McHugh (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Bishop) had been postponed and the bill had been 
read through page 47, line 2.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Lynch

  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lynch:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec. 503. (a) The Secretary of Energy, in cooperation with 
     appropriate public and private entities, shall develop a plan 
     to respond to potential disruptions in worldwide oil and 
     natural gas production. Such plan shall include--
       (1) identifying and assessing all threats to current oil 
     and natural gas supplies that would result in a disruption of 
     greater than 5 percent of the current oil and gas supply;

[[Page H3191]]

       (2) formulating contingencies for acquiring, diverting, or 
     reallocating available oil and gas supplies to mitigate 
     disruptions to United States security and economic stability; 
     and
       (3) formulating a plan for allocating available resources 
     in the event that rationing becomes necessary.
       (b)(1) Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Senate Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources and the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce a report containing the 
     assessment and prioritized recommendations required by 
     subsection (a) and an estimate of the cost to implement such 
     recommendations.
       (2) The Secretary may submit the report in both classified 
     and redacted formats if the Secretary determines that such 
     action is appropriate or necessary.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply asks that the Energy Department 
develop a plan to respond to potential disruptions in worldwide oil and 
natural gas production and distribution.
  Throughout the last year, we have witnessed a 38 percent spike in the 
price of crude oil and concurrently a sharp rise in the average cost of 
gasoline to American families, reaching over $3 a gallon. In recent 
weeks, crude oil prices have risen to over $70 a barrel.
  Among the chief factors that have been cited in the cause of the 
recent spike has been increased worldwide consumption and demand as 
countries such as China and India have experienced significant economic 
growth. China alone over the past 4 years is responsible for 40 percent 
of new demand around the globe.
  However, it is the United States that remains the world's leading oil 
consumer, consuming over 20 million barrels a day, while producing only 
about 7 million barrels a day. Notably, our high oil consumption, 
coupled with the weakened reserve position, means that the United 
States for the most part will continue to rely on world markets for its 
crude oil supply. Currently, 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption is 
projected to be satisfied by imports of crude oil and petroleum 
products by the year 2025.

                              {time}  1815

  Regrettably, our growing dependence on foreign oil not only poses a 
substantial risk to our economic security but may also serve to 
compromise the effectiveness of American foreign policy, as high 
domestic demand leaves the United States susceptible to the threat of 
hostile oil-related political reactions by foreign governments in oil-
producing countries.
  Iran, for example, is the second largest producer within OPEC and has 
repeatedly issued thinly veiled supply interruption threats in response 
to our efforts to curb that country's uranium enrichment program. In 
Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez, whose country is the United States' 
fifth largest source of crude imports, has asserted the possibility of 
retaliatory actions stemming from his opposition to U.S. policy.
  It is clear that our overall economy is severely impacted by the 
spikes in crude oil and the prices of gasoline. The growing uncertainty 
of the oil reserves available to the United States is also greatly 
called into question. As long as we as a Nation continue our addiction 
to foreign oil, we will be beholden to the actions of these rogue 
states.
  Last week, in a Government Reform Subcommittee, we heard the Under 
Secretary of Energy say that in the event of any disruption of any of 
these major players around the globe that supply us with oil and 
natural gas, we would have to immediately go to the U.S. Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve to satisfy any shortage. That is not a good long-term 
solution.
  We have had threats in the past. We had Arab oil embargoes in this 
country back in 1973, and we had a plan in place to deal with that 
shortage. Right now, according to the Secretary of the Energy 
Department, we have no surplus reserves. We have no untapped reserves 
in the event of a shortage.
  This amendment would call on the Energy Department to develop such a 
plan to deal with these contingencies, to deal with reallocations and 
to deal with the crisis that would develop in the event that any of 
these countries discontinued their supply of oil to the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize that you can only do so much in any one bill, 
and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for all their good work 
on this bill, but this is something that needs to happen, and I just 
ask the chairman and the ranking member to work with me to force the 
Department of Energy to develop this plan.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part: An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.
  The amendment gives affirmative direction, in effect, and, therefore, 
is legislation on an appropriations bill.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman makes a point of 
order against the amendment.
  Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman asks unanimous consent to withdraw 
his amendment.
  Hearing no objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Engel:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 303 of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13212).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will be brief and submit most of my statement for the record, but 
essentially this is the same language that was adopted yesterday on the 
agriculture appropriations bill.
  Basically, it is a reminder to the agencies that Congress has created 
and that Congress continues to fund that they need to follow the laws 
that Congress enacts. A law was enacted in 1992 which stated that, by 
1999, 75 percent of the new vehicles acquired must be alternative-fuel 
vehicles. We aren't even close to 75 percent.
  So this is something that I believe that all Departments should do. 
The Department of Energy purchased 1,724 cars last year, of which 927 
were gasoline powered, meaning that 47 percent were alternative. That 
is nowhere near the 75 percent.
  Again, I will submit most of this for the Record, but my amendment 
would mandate they essentially follow congressional law and get the 
purchase of alternative-fuel vehicles up to 75 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, President Bush was right to say we are addicted to oil. 
But now we in Congress need to take action. We need to take this action 
because it is in the interest of our national security.
  We need bold action to end this addiction. We need ethanol--not as an 
additive but as a full fledged alternative.
  I believe we need to get a more flexible fuel vehicle on the road. 
And, I believe we should use the purchasing power of the Federal 
Government to pursue this.
  Now some may not like the Federal Government interfering in markets. 
To this I would respond, this is about national security and that

[[Page H3192]]

is the Federal Government's responsibility. And with the war on terror, 
we must look at all options--not just putting our military overseas but 
what we can do right here at home.
  Some might not like the Federal Government interfering with 
consumer's choices. To this I would respond that the U.S. Government is 
the largest consumer of goods and services on the planet. And to meet 
our responsibility to protect the American people, we have to take this 
step toward weaning ourselves from foreign oil.
  Furthermore, Congress has already spoken on this issue, however the 
Administrations--both Democratic and Republican Administrations--have 
failed to comply.
  Let's take this first step and use the Federal Government's 
purchasing power to make alternative fuels a reality.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. I will accept the time and will just say that I accept 
the gentleman's amendment and, therefore, yield back any time that I 
may have.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Deal of Georgia.
  Amendment by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  Amendment by Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut.
  Amendment by Mr. Andrews of New Jersey.
  Amendment by Ms. Berkley of Nevada.
  Amendment by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Deal) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes--201, answered ``present'' 6, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 196]

                               AYES--216

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dingell
     Drake
     Duncan
     Emanuel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Ford
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--201

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capps
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--6

     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     Filner
     Hayes
     Jenkins
     Kucinich

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Evans
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Gerlach
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Linder
     Skelton
     Snyder
     Wynn

                              {time}  1853

  Mr. CAMP, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. NEAL of 
Massachusetts, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. CLYBURN and Mrs. CAPPS 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. TANCREDO, 
Ms. LEE, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. McDERMOTT, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Ms. 
WOOLSEY, Messrs. PRICE of North Carolina, DELAHUNT, CLEAVER, ROTHMAN, 
CALVERT, BRADLEY of New Hampshire, SIMPSON, CLAY, RANGEL, BARTLETT of 
Maryland, MEEKS of New York, Kind, BISHOP of New York, PLATTS, DENT, 
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. OBEY, Ms. HART, Ms. BALDWIN, Messrs. 
BEAUPREZ, SHAYS, KING of Iowa, REICHERT, HONDA, RAMSTAD, SMITH of 
Texas, OBERSTAR, and Miss McMORRIS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  Ms. FOXX changed her vote from ``present'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. HAYES changed his vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
  Mr. JENKINS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``present.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H3193]]

  Stated for:
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 196, 
The Deal Amendment to H.R. 5427, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Conaway). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 128, 
noes 295, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 197]

                               AYES--128

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Rangel
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                               NOES--295

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Evans
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Gerlach
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Linder
     Skelton
     Snyder
     Wynn

                              {time}  1901

  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DUNCAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. CHAIRMAN, on Rollcall No. 197, 
the Markey Amendment to HR 5427, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McHugh). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217, 
noes 204, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 198]

                               AYES--217

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Camp (MI)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter

[[Page H3194]]


     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--204

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Evans
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Gerlach
     Issa
     Istook
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Linder
     Skelton
     Snyder
     Wynn

                              {time}  1908

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 198, 
the DeLauro Amendment to H.R. 5427, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Andrews

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 195, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 199]

                               AYES--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keller
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Evans
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Gerlach
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Linder
     Nunes
     Skelton
     Snyder
     Wynn

                              {time}  1916

  So the amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H3195]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 199, 
the Andrews Amendment to H.R. 5427, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Berkley

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McHugh). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147, 
noes 271, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 200]

                               AYES--147

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boyd
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Porter
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Souder
     Stark
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--271

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bono
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Gerlach
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Linder
     McKinney
     Ney
     Skelton
     Snyder
     Wynn

                              {time}  1922

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 200 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 200, 
the Berkley Amendment to H.R. 5427, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161, 
noes 255, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 201]

                               AYES--161

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kline
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Wasserman Schultz

[[Page H3196]]


     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                               NOES--255

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Baird
     Brown, Corrine
     Buyer
     Crenshaw
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Gerlach
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kingston
     Linder
     Skelton
     Snyder
     Weiner
     Wynn

                              {time}  1929

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 201, 
the Markey amendment to H.R. 5427, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I seek this time in order to enter into a 
colloquy with Chairman Hobson. The colloquy is regarding the 
construction of mooring facilities on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway 
in Columbus, Mississippi.
  A new $800 million steel plant, SeverCorr, is bringing over 500 jobs 
to Lowndes County. Given that the average wages for hourly workers will 
approach $70,000 annually, each one of these jobs is likely to be 
transformational for the families involved.
  The SeverCorr project is the largest private construction project in 
the United States this year. A large amount of SeverCorr's raw 
materials and finished product will be shipped utilizing the Tennessee-
Tombigbee Waterway beginning in June 2007. The company expects to use 
approximately 50 or 60 additional barges each month. However, there are 
no mooring facilities along this portion of the Tennessee-Tombigbee.
  Presently, if an operator needs to moor a barge temporarily or 
overnight, the operator may tie the barge to one of several trees along 
the bank. This situation will clearly present a significant threat to 
navigation safety once the steel plant begins operation. Absence of a 
mooring facility could also present operational challenges to the 
smooth and safe transport of materials and inhibit this critically 
important economic activity.
  I understand that the bill continues a moratorium on new projects by 
the Corps of Engineers. However, I hope the chairman will work with me 
to identify ways the committee can help support the important economic 
development taking place in my district along the Tennessee-Tombigbee.
  Mr. HOBSON. I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to my 
attention. I appreciate the important safety and economic 
justifications for construction of the mooring facility in Columbus. I 
understand the time limitations related to the plant's opening next 
year.
  The gentleman is correct. This bill does contain a moratorium on new 
starts. However, in the event new starts are taken up in conference, 
this project will be a priority.
  Mr. WICKER. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank my friend for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, Lake Isabella Dam in my district as of 
April is under a significant capacity restriction due to major concerns 
about the level of seepage at the base of the dam. The Army Corps of 
Engineers has rated Isabella Dam its top dam safety concern in the 
Nation. But even with that designation, the corps has informed me it 
would take as many as 6 years to create a permanent solution. The dam 
protects a half a million people as well as valuable agricultural and 
oil fields.
  I appreciate the fact that the chairman has provided report language 
urging the corps to expedite the process, but I would like to discuss 
with the chairman what that means.
  Mr. HOBSON. I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to my 
attention. I share your concern about dam safety and expediting the 
process to take corrective action at Isabella Dam.
  The corps requires additional studies to identify the exact nature of 
the problem and to begin fixing, but the time frame could be shortened 
both through additional funding and expedited procedures. I pledge to 
work with you to identify ways to provide both funding and procedural 
expediency and will also talk to the corps.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with 
him to find additional funding for this critical dam safety issue. If 
the corps has rated this their top dam safety concern, their behavior 
should reflect that in expressed concern. And I look forward to working 
with the chairman in conference to produce that, and I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. McHenry) for a colloquy.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate your leadership and 
the hard work of your staff and the work they put into making this 
appropriations bill possible. I certainly appreciate that.
  I would like to discuss an important issue in my district as well in 
western North Carolina. In recent years, my district has seen literally 
thousands of furniture and textile industry jobs leave due to unfair 
trade practices. Right now we have an industry interested in moving to 
our area, but the location they prefer will require some landscaping, 
including moving roughly 2,000 feet of a small unnamed stream. This 
will require approval of the Army Corps of Engineers.
  As you are well aware, the corps approval process can take many 
months and experience significant delays. In

[[Page H3197]]

my opinion, projects that provide economic development and jobs to 
economically distressed areas should be expedited and take priority 
over other permits.
  Mr. HOBSON. I am aware of this situation and will certainly encourage 
the corps to move this project through the permitting process in an 
expedited manner to ensure that time is not an obstacle for economic 
development.
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank the chairman and look forward to working with 
you and your staff as this project moves forward through the permitting 
process. And I appreciate your willingness to help and assist through 
this.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage the esteemed chairman 
of the subcommittee in a colloquy concerning language and funding for 
the health of Florida's ecosystem.
  Mr. Chairman, south Florida has experienced numerous challenging 
issues related to Lake Okeechobee, the quantity and quality of the 
water coming through the Caloosahatchee River and the Everglades. This 
unique ecosystem and the economy surrounding it deserve the necessary 
resources to ensure the continuing and lasting health of our region.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is critical that several projects be 
funded to maintain the health on the region's ecosystem. The first of 
these projects includes the modified water project to remove the 
unnatural barrier of US-41. The completion of this project would 
restore most of the natural flow of the Everglades from Lake 
Okeechobee.
  Second, the use of ASRs, aquifer storage and recovery systems, in the 
water management of the lake is a critical and innovative need that 
will help bridge the gap between short- and long-term goals.
  Third, recent reports have raised serious concerns about the 
integrity of the dike surrounding Lake Okeechobee. The Federal 
Government must not allow the critical dike to fail.
  Finally, it is imperative that the United States Senate follow the 
lead of the House and finally pass the WRDA legislation. WRDA has 
several billion dollars of these important projects. The United States 
Government made a commitment to restore the Everglades. This House has 
worked to keep our commitment, and it is time for the United States 
Senate to act. Thankfully, with the leadership of the gentleman from 
Ohio, I am sure the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations 
will continue to be steadfast in its support of restoring south 
Florida's ecosystem.
  Mr. HOBSON. I thank the gentleman. I want you to know I understand 
these problems, having spent some time in Florida as I have 
grandchildren there.
  We funded the waters. I think I talked to you also about the river 
and I want to do something about that. I pledge the support of this 
committee to make the necessary resources available to help with vital 
issues.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the gentleman for those remarks and his leadership 
on this issue. Obviously, he understands that the issues are vital to 
the well-being of my home State and a place where he likes to visit. I 
look forward to continuing to work with him.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to promulgate regulations without consideration of 
     the effect of such regulations on the competitiveness of 
     American businesses.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It just says we will not 
promulgate any regulations without considering the effect such 
regulations have on the competitiveness of American businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the President highlighted 
competitiveness in his State of the Union address this year. The 
President understands the need for helping make America more 
competitive. The Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, thanks to 
Chairman Hobson of Ohio, fully funds the President's American 
Competitiveness Initiative within the Department of Energy at $4.1 
billion. Hopefully, that money will be well spent to lay the groundwork 
for a strong U.S. position in the future economy.
  This funding will help America provide leadership in the area of 
science and energy research. Our teachers, engineers and scientists 
need resources to help them stay on the forefront of new discoveries 
and practical application of new technologies.
  The President understands the importance of training more scientists 
and engineers to conduct needed research for our future economy. China 
currently graduates more English speaking engineers every year than we 
do right here in America. They are planning for the next economy.
  But beyond Federal funding, the importance of science, energy and 
teacher training initiatives, it is vitally important that our Federal 
agencies create rules in a way that do not restrict the businesses from 
being competitive. Federal spending, while it is important, is not the 
primary answer to making America more competitive. It is the private 
sector that creates jobs, not the government. We need to make sure that 
the rules and regulations are written in ways that will not harm our 
competitiveness.
  Unnecessary burdensome regulations restrict American businesses from 
doing what they do best, and that is creating jobs. Other barriers 
beyond regulations include skyrocketing health care costs that are 
driven by government regulations, excess civil litigation costs that 
our laws allow, punitive tax policy, unenforced trade policy, a need to 
focus education in technical areas, and the directed research and 
development funds similar to what we have here in this bill.
  Energy policy is another area. We must remove the barriers to lower 
energy costs. America currently has 103 civilian nuclear reactors that 
are responsible for generating 20 percent of our electrical needs. We 
could use more nuclear energy for our future electricity needs to 
reduce the demand on fossil fuels, but there are a number of obstacles 
in the way to these new plants from them being ordered, licensed and 
built.
  No nuclear power plants have been built since 1978. The last one took 
30 years. We have to simplify the regulations. It is important to do 
that in order to make America more competitive. We need to continue 
assisting, not hindering, commercial interests by pursuing more nuclear 
power plants. The more affordable we can make electricity, the more 
American businesses are going to benefit by having lower energy costs.
  In an era when energy prices have soared, Congress needs to do 
everything possible to reduce the barriers in the marketplace to 
provide affordable energy. The more reliable and affordable sources of 
energy we can create in America, the more help businesses will have in 
creating and keeping our jobs.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I realize that the House rules view this amendment 
as legislating in an appropriations bill, but fighting for a strong 
economy is a good thing. It is good for America, and it is good for 
American jobs.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. Chairman, out of respect for this process, I respectfully ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McHugh). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H3198]]


       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
     enforce any claim for a termination payment (as defined in 
     any jurisdictional contract) asserted by any regulated entity 
     the Commission has found to have violated the terms of its 
     market-based rate authority by engaging in manipulation of 
     market rules or exercise of market power in the Western 
     Interconnection during the period January 1, 2000, to June 
     20, 2001.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, we have a very commonsense amendment that 
would simply say that we will not be using funds in FERC to allow FERC 
to rule in favor of Enron against civil utilities and several companies 
around the country who signed contracts with Enron.
  We know what happened in Enron. They were unable to provide 
electricity. As a result, there was a termination of contract.
  We want to make sure that FERC would not issue a ruling while 
discussions are going on with the parties that would require these 
utilities and companies to pay Enron. So it is quite a simple 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say this to the gentleman, I am sympathetic to the amendment, 
and we will probably take the amendment. I want to tell you, though, 
that we have some problem with what we are doing in this bill when we 
begin to get into this sort of regulatory adjudication process. I do 
not think this is the right way to go.
  I understand the frustrations with Enron. I do, I think most people 
do, but I think we really need to let the agencies do their job. But I 
want you to understand we are going to take the amendment. It may need 
a little tinkering with as we go through the process.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, we will certainly be pleased to work with 
the Chair if there is any tinkering necessary.
  I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman as well 
for being patient and considerate on this amendment. We know it is not 
perfect. We are willing to work on the issue.
  I have a couple of businesses in Montana, through no fault of their 
own, that signed a contract with Enron. It became very apparent early 
that Enron was not going to be able to fulfill their responsibilities 
under this contract. Unfortunately, they are innocent bystanders that 
got included in the bankruptcy court. Ultimately, it ended up in the 
jurisdiction of FERC. This amendment allows an opportunity to buy them 
some time to come up with some kind of a mediated solution.
  So I recognize it is not perfect. I want to again thank the chairman 
for his patience and consideration. I thank Mr. Inslee for introducing 
the amendment and hope that we can pass this amendment.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen), who has done a great job on this issue for 
years.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I wish to quickly say thank 
you to the chairman of the subcommittee for agreeing to accept the 
amendment.
  There is a great amount of frustration in Washington State, all over 
Washington State. I represent an area that is the largest public 
utility district. I represent an area that has the only aluminum plant 
still standing because all the other aluminum plants had to go out of 
business because of some manipulation that took place on the market 
with Enron.
  We just want some time, some space for the parties to work this out, 
and this amendment will do that, and I appreciate the chairman's 
willingness to let us move forward.
  Mr. INSLEE. I want to thank the Chair for his accommodation of this 
issue. I do not want these termination clauses to yield an unjust 
result. This will give us time to move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 503. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 1 percent.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment is similar to others that I have offered over the past 
4 years. It would cut total spending in the bill by 1 percent, one 
penny on the dollar, or $300,170,000.
  Now, I do not need to go into great explanation about this because 
everybody knows exactly what it is, and we also know pretty much the 
result.
  I would also like to say Mr. Hobson's argument would be that he has 
already done a good deal of cutting in here, and indeed, he has, and I 
commend him for it. He is extremely conscientious when it comes to the 
spending of government money, but I would point out that we just 
started the appropriations process, but if we had passed the Hefley 
amendments that I have offered on the few bills that we have had so far 
we would have saved $747,350,000. Three-quarters of $1 billion we would 
have saved already.
  We have just started the appropriations process. So it is not 
insignificant, even though it is only a penny on the dollar, and for 
these reasons, I offer this amendment and urge its support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think I said this to Mr. Hefley maybe last year. He follows in some 
great footsteps in offering this amendment, in my opinion, because part 
of my district used to be represented by Clarence Miller from Ohio, and 
Clarence Miller I think had the distinction of either 1 percent or 10 
percent, Clarence, when he was here doing this. He is still alive and 
very active, but I reluctantly think that we have already got too many 
problems in this bill on trying to fund things adequately. So I would 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman and join him 
in his objection. I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman and 
my great friend from Colorado, but this is a very carefully worked 
bill, very carefully crafted bill, and decisions have been made that 
are discrete on a project-by-project basis, and I do not think it is 
correct policy to simply then have an across-the-board cut regardless 
of what the amount is and would join my chairman in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand those arguments, but if you 
don't have the money, we need to stop spending or at least cut down the 
spending. This is 1 percent. I would encourage support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by

[[Page H3199]]

the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken, and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman from Ohio for 
yielding to me.
  I wanted to speak tonight, Mr. Chairman, about the Atlantic 
Intercoastal Waterway, which stretches 161 miles from the South 
Carolina border to the Florida border going through the 1st District of 
Georgia; and if one measures the number of miles by the coastline, it 
is probably five or six times that.
  I live by the Intercoastal Waterway. I have a boat. My friends have 
boats. My constituents have boats. The water is filling in, and it is a 
big problem in terms of recreational boating.
  My concern is that the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB, in 
their formula does not consider the economic impact of a recreational 
boater when deciding if a waterway should be dredged or not.
  In Georgia, for example, the last time we had serious dredging of the 
Intercoastal Waterway was in 2002. We have asked for $2.5 million for 
dredging for Georgia 2 years in a row, and because of the tight 
constraints, the committee has not been able to do that.
  It has been the same way with the Senate. They are trying to work on 
something, too.
  Senator Saxby Chambliss and Senator Johnny Isakson and I are all in 
agreement that this needs to be addressed, but when the Office of 
Management and Budget is looking at the commercial traffic ranks of the 
Intercoastal Waterway, they only consider the big tonnage, the 
commercial shipping. They do not consider the light loading, the 
recreational boater.
  The recreational boater is the guy who goes out there, pulls his 
children on skis, has a camera, has a cooler, packs a bag of baloney 
sandwiches, has a lot of Coca-Cola, which in another part of the 
country he is probably carrying Pepsi, and spends a lot of money on the 
local economy, a significant amount of money. One marina alone told me 
that their receipts will be in excess of $500,000. If the Intercoastal 
Waterway was closed up, then that marina will be gone. Those five to 
twelve jobs that they have will be gone. The money that his clients 
bring into the area, buying parts for their boats and related 
recreational equipment in skis and fishing poles and so forth, that 
will be gone as well.
  We need to get the Office of Management and Budget to change their 
funding formula so that they will consider the economic impact of the 
recreational boater just as high or along the same line or with the 
same yardstick as they do commercial boaters.
  I had an amendment to that effect. I have not offered the amendment 
because this committee has worked so closely with us on a lot of 
issues. I know that the staff was not exactly appreciative if we were 
going to try to authorize something on an appropriation bill. It was 
not appropriate. So I am not offering that amendment, but I know the 
staff has been very sympathetic to this issue, as have you, Mr. 
Chairman, and I just wanted to thank you, but say that, along the line, 
we are not going to let this issue go.
  We need to have the Office of Management and Budget change their 
funding formula, and I intend to pursue legislation on that, and I just 
wanted to thank you for all the support you have given us on some of 
the other dredging issues and wanted to make this point, though, on the 
record.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond, you have got the 
problem correct and we are sympathetic to the problem because it is an 
economic development tax revenue situation that they do not seem to 
want to recognize. We have this both in the waterways there and 
renourishment programs, the dredging of some of these smaller harbors 
as have gone through on another situation. So I am very sympathetic to 
this.
  So far, we have not been able to get OMB to go along, but we have a 
new director of OMB, used to be a Member here, used to live on the Ohio 
River. Maybe he will understand it better than the other OMB directors 
we have.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, well, I had an opportunity to speak to 
Mr. Portman a few minutes ago and just pled the case real briefly with 
the promise of a follow-up phone call.
  I do want to thank you for all the harbor dredging that you have 
helped us with, Mr. Visclosky has helped us with. The staff has gone 
above and beyond the call of duty on that. You guys have been 
magnificent, but we also have this intercoastal problem with the 
recreational boaters that is a tremendous issue in our area.
  So we want to continue to work with you, and I really appreciate 
everything you have done.
  Mr. HOBSON. We are going to do that.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for Virginia Science Museum, VA.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I call attention to this earmark today because there is so little 
information available about its purpose. It appears inconsistent with 
the program that would fund it.
  The committee report lists this earmark, for the Science Museum of 
Virginia, in the Biological and Environmental Research program.
  My amendment would prevent funding for this purpose.
  I know that some museums do scientific research, but the background 
research on this earmark turned up very little by the way of research 
being done by the Science Museum of Virginia.
  As an aside, I would note that the museum will soon open a traveling 
exhibit on candy, sponsored by the Jelly Belly Candy Company. It does 
not sound like much research to me.
  I know that the Science Museum of Virginia was created by State law, 
and I have a basic understanding of the mission of the museum, and the 
intentions are certainly worthy.

                              {time}  2000

  The museum says it is currently raising funds to restore and remodel 
parts of the building; to add classrooms, meeting facilities, a 
library, a cafeteria, and office space; for new landscaping, new 
parking facilities, and exhibits.
  But why are Federal funds being used for these projects? It just 
isn't clear to me how the museum serves a Federal function when it 
comes to biological and environmental research.
  Again, that is the program through which we are funding this museum. 
I am sure that the museum is funded in part by admission fees and also 
by State tax funds. I would think there are also private donors who 
fund it. Again, what is the Federal purpose being served by funding 
this earmark? How should we explain this one to the taxpayers of 
Arizona or California or Iowa or Michigan or anywhere else outside the 
State of Virginia?
  I am afraid that fiscal discipline and transparency is such a thing 
of the past that we will begin to see museum exhibits about it.
  I just don't see why we are doing this, why we are funding this type 
of museum out of a program that is supposed to be for scientific 
research.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).

[[Page H3200]]

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment by the gentleman from Arizona. The Science Museum of Virginia 
is one of the leading science museums and education and research 
facilities in the country, and I do not support any provision which 
would seek to bar it from receiving funds.
  While the gentleman's intention may have been to bar the $250,000 
earmark contained in the conference report, the language of this 
amendment is so broad that it would prevent the Virginia Science Museum 
from competing for any grants or funding streams, competitive or 
otherwise, included in the act.
  Now, along with my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), I am one 
of the cochairs of the Congressional Chesapeake Bay Task Force and 
would like to reiterate the point that the work of the Science Museum 
with regard to testing and monitoring of the Potomac and Occoquan 
Rivers, both of which are part of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, are 
vital to the continuing efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. As the 
Nation's largest and most productive estuaries, it is indeed a national 
priority. So, too, Mr. Chairman, is the mission of the Science Museum 
to engage in instruction and research in the sciences to educate 
children.
  I would hope that the gentleman would not pursue this amendment. This 
is an extreme amendment that unnecessarily harms the Science Museum, 
and I would hope the amendment is defeated.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
sponsor of the earmark, Mr. Scott, and I would just like to ask him 
what kind of oversight is offered. Is there a reporting requirement? 
How do we know the museum is actually spending the money for scientific 
research rather than having the traveling exhibits from the Jelly Belly 
Candy Company?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, the money will 
be spent for research in the Chesapeake Bay. This is a national 
priority. And I would hope that the testing and monitoring of the 
Potomac and Occoquan Rivers, both of which are part of the Chesapeake 
Bay Watershed will continue. I mean, it is a national priority.
  We spend substantial resources on the Chesapeake Bay, and this 
research will go a long way in helping to preserve the Chesapeake Bay.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I simply think this is a great example of 
the problem with having so many earmarks, over 10,000 earmarks in any 
given year, in all appropriation bills. As the minority leader 
mentioned yesterday, we simply don't have the staff or the resources to 
police these earmarks to know if they are going for the intended 
purpose and for oversight.
  When we try to figure out which of the hundreds of earmarks to 
actually bring up here, we will often try to find out about the 
earmark. Sometimes the only information we have is from the press 
release that the Member who requested the earmark put out. The Federal 
agencies have nothing. Perhaps we can go to a Web site for the 
recipient of the earmark.
  But in terms of oversight, there is virtually nothing. We are just 
approving $100,000 here, $200,000 here, $5 million there, until it adds 
up to hundreds of millions of dollars with virtually no oversight; 
nobody to check back. Then, when we try to actually conduct proper 
oversight of Federal agencies, it is almost a laughing matter because 
we have already stipulated that they spend funds for a museum. In one 
case last year, it was money for a museum in the Defense appropriations 
bill, and there are several museums in this piece of legislation.
  I would submit that we have got to get a handle on this. We have to 
change the process. That is why we are here today, because I have 
exhausted every other avenue privately. This is the only place we can 
actually exercise any oversight, right here, in 5 minutes, to look at 
this earmark and look at the millions of dollars that are spent 
elsewhere.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Davis had a prior commitment and couldn't be here 
tonight, because we didn't know what time these were going to come up 
to defend this. We review these within the committee and we looked at 
his request, and I am here to say that he met those tests.
  But as far as the oversight on these things, there are project 
officers within the agencies. We want to fund science research wherever 
we can, and there are things like inspectors general who go out and 
look at these projects and make sure they are done right. If people 
don't like them and they are not done right, then they report back, and 
we take appropriate action. So Mr. Davis got a small earmark for this.
  I might say my frustration is that, earlier this evening, I tried to 
cut $25 million, to keep $25 million out of this bill that went to 
little grants that we have no control over, and I wasn't able to do 
that. The will of this House was to fund that program for $25 million.
  So I share some of the gentleman's frustrations. I don't particularly 
share it about this one, but I share it about a $25 million deal out 
there, which is probably larger than some of the cuts you are trying to 
do tonight. So I am maybe more frustrated than you are at the moment.
  Mr. Chairman, do I have any time left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding and 
would associate myself with his remarks and add my voice and objection 
to the amendment being offered.
  The fact is our committee does a great job at oversight. And as the 
chairman mentioned in his opening statement, we held a series of 
hearings dedicated to oversight. As he points out, you do have offices 
of inspectors general, and we do have a very competent staff, and we do 
exercise a great deal of care.
  So I do join the chairman and appreciate his yielding.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, can I yield to the ranking minority member 
and ask: Has there been any hearings on this project, the Virginia 
Science Museum?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I have made my statement to the House.
  Mr. FLAKE. Okay. Does anyone know? Have there been any hearings, or 
has this ever been authorized?
  All right. Thank you.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity 
to talk about the good work being done by the Virginia Science Museum 
at Belmont Bay in Prince William County.
  The Belmont Bay Science Center accomplishes a large number of 
valuable services, including the long-term water quality monitoring 
program that promotes the environmental health of the Occoquan and 
Potomac Rivers. These, as we all know, flow into the Chesapeake Bay.
  Specifically, this program monitors chemical and biological 
conditions in these rivers. While my colleague is from Arizona, I am 
sure he is aware of the dire environmental concerns that affect the 
Potomac and Chesapeake Bay, especially in terms of high levels of 
nitrogen stemming from sewage treatment plants and agricultural run-
off. Thus, monitoring is a critical importance.
  The center also serves to teach Northern Virginia residents about the 
Potomac and Occoquan Rivers, as well as the Chesapeake Bay, and the 
attending environmental issues.
  As a co-chair of the Chesapeake Bay Task Force, I have joined with 
other concerned colleagues to work to restore health to the Bay and its 
tributaries. This request for the Virginia Science Museum is part and 
parcel of those efforts.
  The Bay watershed includes Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and the 
District of Columbia. It is therefore an interstate--or federal--
concern.
  I again thank my colleague for the opportunity to advertise the 
virtues of the Virginia Science Museum--virtues that would have 
otherwise been obscured by the stark black and white print of the 
committee report.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H3201]]

the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for Research and Environmental Center at Mystic 
     Aquarium, CT.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is an earmark for the Mystic Aquarium and Institute for 
Exploration. These are divisions of the Sea Research Foundation, which 
is a nonprofit institution. According to the Foundation, its mission is 
to inspire people everywhere to care about and protect our oceans by 
exploring and sharing their biological, ecological and cultural 
treasures.
  According to its Web site, the Mystic Aquarium is a nonprofit 
organization whose donations and revenue from admissions go to the 
development and execution of educational programs, marine research, 
marine animal rescue and deep sea expeditions.
  This is a good thing. I am sure it is a great museum. Corporate 
membership in the aquarium includes Foxwoods Resort Casino, American 
Laboratory Trading, CL&P, Coca-Cola, the Kraft Corporation, Hubbell 
Manufacturing, Monsanto and Pfizer, to name a few. Donations from these 
entities pay for some wonderful things. The aquarium is a recognized 
leader in aquatic animals and archeological exhibits and also a 
recognized leader in oceanic research.
  Let me say again, Mr. Chairman, these are very good things. This is 
wonderful that they are doing these things. But with all the 
groundbreaking research and programs at the aquarium, why is it then 
that the taxpayer should fund $400,000 for this research and 
environmental center at the Mystic Aquarium? Where is the Federal 
nexus?
  With so many private partners and local funding sources, why do we 
involve ourselves? There are aquariums all over the country. If we 
decided that we were going to give an earmark for every one, how would 
we fund it? How do we pick and choose between this one and that one or 
this one and that one?
  I would submit that we simply can't, and we shouldn't. We ought to 
have a process that doesn't allow individual members to say, I think I 
need that money for my project in my district. When we do that, we 
simply get away from what we are all about here. We have a process, 
authorization, appropriation, oversight, and we seem to have ignored 
the end of each of that, the authorization and the oversight, and we 
just do the appropriations.
  When we do that, we get ourselves in trouble. We embarrass ourselves 
with some of the earmarks that we do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I thank my friend from Arizona for saying nice things about the 
Mystic Aquarium. I appreciate that. It is a great aquarium. It is a 
nonprofit. It is an educational facility. It is a facility that has 
been in operation for over 20 years.
  Earlier he asked the question as to whether there had been any prior 
authorizations. In actual fact, the activities of the aquarium have 
attracted funding in fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004.
  The moneys that we are talking about here tonight are not just moneys 
that are going to purchase fish food and clean the tanks. The moneys 
that we are talking about here tonight are to develop a research and 
environmental education center as a part of this research center.
  Most of our colleagues have heard of Dr. Bob Ballard. Dr. Bob Ballard 
is the foremost ocean explorer in the world today. He is collocated at 
the Mystic Aquarium. His institute for exploration is collocated in the 
facility. His name is on the application.
  The question could be asked: Well, okay, we have private sponsors. We 
have State and local sponsors, but what should be the responsibility of 
the Federal Government when it comes to marine science, marine research 
and ocean exploration? Well, one Federal dollar in this program creates 
a minimum of $10 from other sources. So one Federal dollar can be 
leveraged 10 to 20 times for these types of activities.
  Why would the American taxpayer care about that? Well, I tell you why 
they care about it. Because we intimately involve young people with 
these activities. Two-thirds of the Nation's fourth through ninth 
graders are scoring below proficiency levels in science.

                              {time}  2015

  The National Science Foundation indicates students are pursuing 
graduate degrees in declining numbers. The activities of this aquarium 
and the activities of Dr. Bob Ballard turn kids on to science. That is 
a good thing. That is something we should support.
  I urge my colleague to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would simply say again there have been no hearings on this project. 
There will be no oversight hearings to see if the money is spent 
properly, and it is an earmark, so it is not authorized. So we have 
circumvented the process again. When we do that, when we circumvent the 
process and we do not have direct oversight, we diminish our ability to 
offer credible oversight.
  Again, when we tell the Federal agencies, the Department of Defense, 
for example, you ought to be spending more money on body armor, they 
come back and tell us, hey, we cannot because you stipulated that we 
spend a million dollars in our defense budget for a museum in New York.
  It is like that in bill after bill after bill. And those who say 
these earmarks do not cost any money, if it is not spent here it will 
be spent somewhere else, don't tell the full story. We are often 
earmarking accounts that we have not earmarked in the past. Those 
accounts are for maintenance, say the FAA to maintain runways and 
towers. Well, they will come back to us next year and say you earmarked 
our accounts for maintenance, so you have to backfill this account. So 
we have to appropriate more. So these do cost.
  If we just got rid of these earmarks, we could lower our allocation 
in this committee and let us spend it on defense or give it back to the 
taxpayers. Let's do something else. So the notion that we heard a lot 
of yesterday that this will not save any money to knock out earmarks is 
simply wrong.
  If the Appropriations Committee would say they are not going to do 
earmarks this year, they could lower their allocation by the total 
amount of earmarks. In the bill yesterday, it was about $500 million.
  This is the only forum we have to stand up for 5 minutes on some of 
the amendments that we choose to highlight to say this process has gone 
awry and we need to change it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  My recollection of the appropriations process is that, if an 
appropriation takes place, it carries with it the authority to expend 
those funds. So if you look at previous appropriations for this 
purpose, I believe that those appropriations reflect the authority to 
spend that money.
  The issue now becomes oversight. I quite frankly think that Members 
of

[[Page H3202]]

this body who live in their districts usually have a pretty good idea 
of where these dollars are going. Speaking for myself, I probably am in 
and out of the Mystic Aquarium at least half a dozen times a year, 
sometimes more frequently. I am intimately involved with the activities 
of this facility.
  Dr. Robert Ballard, who used to be located in Woods Hole, 
Massachusetts, came to Connecticut and came to Mystic because of the 
resources there so he could pursue his research. He was sponsored by 
the State of Connecticut and the local municipality.
  People know what is going on here. People know of some of the 
incredible research that is taking place. People know because their 
kids and because the Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs are benefiting from 
these activities that are happening here.
  And Members know. I believe when a Member submits an earmark and 
follows it through the process, that tells you a lot about the earmark.
  I would put my name against this project any day of the week. I think 
that as somebody who knows my district, knows the people in my 
district, knows the reputation of this facility, knows of the 
impeccable reputation of Dr. Bob Ballard, that this is a good 
expenditure of taxpayer dollars, and I will stand up for it any day of 
the week.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  At what point do we admit we are out of control with earmarks? Would 
it have been at 5,000 earmarks a year? 6,000? 8,000? 9,000? 10,000? We 
are well above that. We have grown in the past decade. I think it has 
been an 872 percent increase in the number of earmarks. The dollar 
value has increased substantially as well.
  Yesterday, we had the ranking minority member concede we have no 
idea, and it is ``grotesquely out of control'' were his words. We have 
that concession on that side.
  On this side we are saying that as well. We do not have a way to 
police these earmarks or to provide oversight. At what point do we say 
we need to sit back and go through the regular authorization 
appropriation process in Congress?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The subcommittee does do oversight of appropriations. There were 313 
days of hearings, 161 volumes. We heard testimony from 3,000 witnesses. 
There are 39 reports. We spend an awful lot of time on oversight, and 
somehow earmarks have become the thing of the day. But I have to tell 
you I spend a lot of time on billions of dollars of overruns and cost 
allowances on administration projects such as Hanford and other things. 
We spend time on these. Each of these goes through a process at the end 
and they are looked at and they are done.
  I understand the concern about the numbers of earmarks. We have cut 
ours back. But my committee is divided up into subcommittees and we are 
out doing oversight. We are trying to rectify some of the problems. I 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for Southwest Gas Corporation GEDAC heat pump 
     Development, NV.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This earmark provides close to $2 million in Federal funding for a 
publicly traded natural gas corporation to do research and development 
on an air conditioning system that uses natural gas instead of 
electricity, a so-called GEDAC.
  I am not disputing the potential benefits of GEDAC technology for 
consumers and natural gas companies. Homeowners are demanding year-
round comfort in their homes, particularly in Arizona, wanting to stay 
cool on hot days and keep warm on cool days at an affordable cost.
  GEDAC use in the Southwestern United States has the potential to save 
significant electrical power and reduce water usage. The gas industry 
has long sought to sell more natural gas for cooling during the summer 
months. However, I cannot see the role of the Federal Government in 
sponsoring corporate research and development that would seek to give 
one industry a leg up over another. How can we pick winners and losers?
  The Southwest Gas Corporation boasts more than a million customers, 
many of whom are in my State. They want more customers, as they should. 
This earmark seeks to subsidize natural gas technology with Federal 
money at the expense of other industry sectors.
  According to the most recent quarterly report, Southwest Gas 
Corporation reported more than $3 billion in assets and after-tax 
income of over $48 million for last year. Beyond that, the defense 
authorization that was recently reported out of committee includes more 
than $6 million for GEDAC demonstration projects.
  Not only are the American taxpayers supposed to help develop the 
technology to expand the gas company's market share, but we are footing 
the bill for road testing it as well. We have to be careful, I believe, 
when we have earmarks for nonprofit corporations and others. I think we 
have to be doubly careful when we are actually funding a for-profit 
corporation and just handing them a check and saying do some research. 
How do we choose that company over another?
  I happen to know the people at Southwest Gas. They are fine people 
and have a fine company, but why are we saying we are going to give 
them an earmark and not others?
  Another problem here, the earmark we have chosen to highlight here is 
$2 million in Federal funding. This is in Nevada. We found out only 
after offering the amendment there is an additional earmark for this 
same company. It is on another page and it simply doesn't say Southwest 
Gas. I think it is for another $3 million. So there is some $4.8 
million that is being spent to subsidize a private company. I would 
submit that is not our role.
  We get in the business of doing this, spending the taxpayers' money 
this way, and also picking winners and losers in the economy. It is 
something that we should not be doing.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I understand some of the gentleman's concerns and what he stated 
about what we are doing with the private sector, but I want to relate a 
little story about a similar earmark from a couple of years ago. I want 
to tell you how it worked out.
  One of the sponsors of this project is not here because he is leaving 
the Congress and he has a dinner, so I am going to fill in for him and 
tell a little story about how this does work, and it is an analogy of 
what might be happening here, also.
  Some years ago, one of the DOE people turned down a product. They did 
not want to pursue the technology. So we did an earmark to this 
company. I think we did it a couple of years. The people came to us and 
said we cannot get into DOE. We have great technology here. The company 
I think was 3M, a big company. They said we cannot get in the door. So 
we gave them a little earmark.
  They pursued the technology and kept talking to DOE. The next thing 
we hear, we hear DOE saying, guess what, there is this great technology 
we

[[Page H3203]]

have just discovered. They had to go through the process we are now 
talking about for DOE to now look at this process. So they got into it 
and they said, wow, this really helps on transmission lines in the 
western part of the United States. We do not have to restring all of 
these lines. I think it increases three or four times the price and 
capacity of the lines. This is something that would not have happened 
if we had not gotten into it.
  The same way here, the heat pump is something we need further 
development of. The one thing I would say on this, it attracts 
corporate dollars. Also, they cannot hide this. They have to share this 
since it is public dollars. Anything that they develop has to be 
developed with their competitors, which is good for the economy and 
good for all of us because we would get it and somebody cannot hold us 
up for it.
  I understand the gentleman's concern, but I think in this case, as in 
the one with 3M, hopefully this will work out to be good for the 
taxpayers of the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada 
(Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Flake 
amendment.
  The project that he is targeting, the gas engine driven air 
conditioning heat pump development program, is a multi-year partnership 
between the Oak Ridge National Laboratories and private industry, 
including, but not exclusively, Southwest Gas in my State of Nevada, to 
develop a rooftop heating and cooling system for residential and small 
commercial buildings using natural gas.
  Mr. Flake is misinformed. The funding goes to the Oak Ridge National 
Research Laboratory, not to Southwest Gas. Rather than relying on 
electricity generated at a power plant to run heating and air 
conditioning, this technology would use natural gas to produce heating 
and air conditioning directly, saving precious energy and water, which 
is particularly important in the drought-stricken Southwest.
  This project, in its second year, is an example of what government, 
working with private industry to find new and more efficient ways to 
generate power, can do.
  I would remind the gentleman from Arizona that our Nation is in an 
energy crisis. We need to be funding more projects like this, not 
fewer. The gentleman is obviously sincere in his desire to reduce 
Federal spending. I wish to echo the comments of many of my colleagues 
who have said that they would prefer the Congress make these types of 
funding decisions rather than leaving it to the bureaucrats in 
Washington.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are told that the only decision is to either spend it ourselves or 
leave it to those amorphous bureaucrats in Washington. How about 
leaving it to the market? That is where things like this are developed. 
Why are we choosing one? And I would have to dispute the 
characterization of this money going to Oak Ridge Laboratory.
  If this money went straight to Oak Ridge Laboratory, I believe it 
would say that in the earmark. All we have to go on is what we have 
here, and that is part of this process, why it is so bad. We have not 
had any hearings on this subject. There is no other documentation than 
the committee report; and the committee report, like I said, we only 
found out later that there were actually two earmarks because one of 
them did not say the company, but the company says to Southwest Gas.
  Is the gentlewoman saying that the money is not going to Southwest 
Gas, that none of the earmarked funds go directly to Southwest Gas?
  Ms. BERKLEY. If the gentleman would yield, it is the gentlewoman's 
understanding that the funds you are trying to remove from this very 
worthy project, which is in its second year, goes to Oak Ridge.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman that all we 
have to go on is the language in the committee report.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Well, I didn't write that language.
  Mr. FLAKE. That is part of what is wrong with this process. We have 
no oversight. The Federal agencies don't know what is going on. We 
heard this story about an earmark that worked. We always hear those 
when we are doing these earmarks. We never hear about the massive 
failures that go on as well or the massive waste that goes on.
  We have no idea how, if that money had not been spent by us, by 
Congress or the bureaucrats, how, if companies would have been able to 
keep more of their tax dollars, they might have done something even 
better or even faster. We just don't hear that.
  So it is simply a false argument to say that the font of all 
knowledge is here in Congress, and we can outguess the market. We can 
do better than that simply by saying I know my district, and I am going 
to put that money there. That is a good company. I like them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I wish I got as much interest from the gentleman and other people on 
the massive overrun on Hanford, which is $6 billion, and I don't hear a 
peep out of anybody. I go around, and I scream about it. It is $6 
billion. I heard all kinds of people are against a couple hundred 
million cut we did en masse. I need help in keeping that.
  Those are the kinds of oversights we need, also. I have not had a 
massive number of people coming to me telling me of all the failures of 
the earmarks that he is talking about. I do get some good positives, 
and if we find out one that is bad we will go after them. We try to 
monitor them. There are project officers.
  I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for Center for End-of-Life Electronics, WV.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will each 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When I first saw this earmark, this is for Center for End-of-Life 
Electronics in West Virginia, I thought that it might have something to 
do with improving treatment technology for terminally ill patients. It 
is not.
  This earmark is about the end of life for electronics, that is, 
computers, televisions, cell phones, et cetera. This earmark intends to 
help a single organization that is in the business of recovering the 
components of electric devices that can be recycled or that could be 
environmentally hazardous.
  My amendment would simply prevent funding for this purpose. As with 
many of the earmarks I pointed out recently, there is simply no 
explanation or justification in the bill or the committee report. My 
staff, trying to find out where this earmark came from or what it is to 
do, had to finally look at a press release that mentions other funding 
secured for this organization. So I assume it is for the same purpose. 
We simply do not know.
  Again, no hearings, no authorization, no method of oversight here. 
Evidently, the program has received $3 million in the past. Now it 
needs another $600,000.
  I would ask the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Hobson, what oversight has 
been exercised over this program up until this point, if he knows. 
Public institutions and private groups in Davisville, West Virginia, 
have partnered and established A Center for

[[Page H3204]]

End-of-Life Electronics to seek solutions for electronic waste.
  What Federal role does this particular center fill? How should we 
explain this one to the taxpayers of Missouri or Connecticut or Arizona 
or any other State outside of West Virginia? I welcome the 
justification for a Federal function in this case. But then I ask, why 
are we picking winners and losers throughout the earmarking process?
  Again, we are choosing one organization. If this recycling operation 
and others like it or any organization or business wants to exceed and 
excel, we should let them compete freely in the marketplace. Let's keep 
Congress out of it.
  I am sure there are many other electronics recycling operations 
throughout the country, but we are favoring just one of them with this 
earmark. I don't think that the Congress ought to be making calls like 
this. I am certainly not capable.
  I know my district pretty well, but I don't think and I wouldn't 
presume to say that a center in my district is the best in the world in 
end-of-life electronics. That is simply a call that we shouldn't be 
making. Rather than seeking to salvage electronic components, Congress 
should be intent on salvaging the process by which we spend tax 
dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's yielding.
  First of all, I would express my opposition to the amendment being 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona. We have an authorized activity 
and the subcommittee has earmarked this project.
  I have a philosophical difference with the approach that the Member 
has taken, as a Member of the House of Representatives, because we are 
a co-equal branch of the United States Government, and the last time I 
looked at the budget of this country was in excess of some trillions of 
dollars.
  The gentleman mentioned catastrophic failures. I would mention that 
the administration spent a great deal of money in their budget request 
on about 10,000 trailers in response to a great natural crisis. Those 
trailers are sitting out in the middle of Arkansas.
  The chairman of the committee talked about Hanford. That was not an 
earmark, but it was requested by the administration. If this committee 
and all of the members of this committee did not continue as we do 
every day to exercise oversight and deliberate activity and judgment, 
they would still be spending more of the taxpayers' hard-earned moneys 
than is necessary.
  There is under construction in the State of California, and I don't 
mean to single them out, but the gentleman mentioned catastrophic 
failures, the National Ignition Facility that some years ago was on 
time and under budget. It was an administration request.
  We are not defunct of all wisdom. The administration is not. There is 
a balance to be struck; and in a budget in excess of some trillions of 
dollars I do believe this subcommittee, under this chairman and the 
Members on it, have made wise and reasoned and specific decisions.
  I am adamantly opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a little upset that there is no oversight, because 
we have tried to do more oversight than I think has been done in a 
number of years.
  Let me tell you how these things work in DOE.
  Each project is assigned a project manager who is responsible to work 
it out in a contract and the scope of the project and results. I am 
informed that this particular account also must have matching funds for 
a project to be awarded or to be made. So there is some oversight for 
the people who are putting the money into it, too.
  These projects must be executed according to accounting standards, as 
in all DOE government awards. These projects are well-known by their 
sponsors. If we hear of a problem or one of the DOE people comes back 
to us who is in charge of the project and says this is out of whack, it 
is not being done right, then we try to take corrective action, too.
  The assertion that there is no oversight is not correct. In the past, 
I think there was less oversight than there is today. But I think we 
have attempted to justify that. We have reorganized our committee in 
such a way that we are doing more oversight. We will continue to do so.
  I think the gentleman may have encouraged us to do some more 
oversight as a result of some of these things, and hopefully that will 
prove out to be good. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let's get back to this specific earmark. I would like to know, like I 
said, all we know is what we gleaned from the press release, because 
there is no other information available at all. But the press release 
indicated that there was just the latest traunch of funding that had 
already gone to this project.
  Would the ranking minority member happen to know if any oversight has 
been conducted on funds that have already been provided to this 
project?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond with a 
question of my own, because the gentleman is very fixated on the lack 
of oversight on the subcommittee, which I take umbrage at.
  But I would also suggest that in an earlier remark you made on the 
floor that almost 70 percent of the spending of the Federal Government 
today, and I share the gentleman's concern making sure we have fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I take it I am not going 
to get an answer to this. All we know is from a press release, and we 
know that this is simply the latest traunch in other funding that has 
been provided.
  What I hear, and I guess the author is not here of the amendment or, 
I am sorry, the author of the earmark, the sponsor of the earmark, that 
no oversight has been conducted.
  Do we feel comfortable going ahead and appropriating more when no 
oversight has been conducted at all on what has already been expended?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Would the gentleman answer a question?
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Are you concerned about earmarks that take place in 
other mandatory legislation and the fact whether or not there is 
specific oversight on an annual basis or, say, tax provisions in this 
country?
  Mr. FLAKE. I am very concerned about the lack of oversight on an 
annual basis for, say, tax provisions in this country.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. That is where 77 percent of the spending has taken 
place.
  Mr. FLAKE. Ninety-six percent of the earmarks that we passed last 
year were in conference reports that were just spending construction to 
the agencies. The agencies have very little knowledge that the funding 
is even there, yes.
  The problem is, if you want little oversight on your earmark, if you 
want it to continue without scrutiny, it pays to be vague about your 
earmark, vague about its goals, vague about any benchmarks that there 
might be. Because as soon as you spell it out and leave a paper trail, 
you are subject to an amendment. If you don't, it might be ruled out of 
order.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.

[[Page H3205]]

  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for Missouri Forest Foundation.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is $750,000 for the Missouri Forest Foundation. 
This foundation has been funded for at least 3 years, and is funded 
through the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program earmark 
section of the bill. The section of the bill includes more than $50 
million in congressionally directed research earmarks. According to 
CRS, earmarks in the appropriations for the Renewable Energy program 
have tripled in the past 3 years.
  According to the Office of the President and the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science, this level of earmarking hampers the 
program from being able to achieve its research goals. Let me say that 
again: According to the Office of the President and the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, this level of earmarking 
hampers the program from being able to achieve its research goals.
  It was these kinds of earmarks in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations 
that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory said caused a $28 million 
shortfall and forced them to lay off 32 positions. While these 
positions were ultimately restored, this shows the downside of earmarks 
and how they can wreak havoc on the administrative agencies.
  The Missouri Forest Foundation, an education and research foundation 
of the forest industry, supports the research and implementation of a 
program that would utilize wood biomass to produce energy. The task 
force mission is to develop a program where wood products from Missouri 
are fully utilized, solving forest health problems and current energy 
issues.
  Bioenergy ranks second to hydropower in renewable U.S. primary energy 
production and accounts for 3 percent of the primary energy production 
in the United States. While I support a diverse energy sector, I cannot 
see the benefit of earmarking a program to the point of 
ineffectiveness.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman from Ohio is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to make one point: In this bill this year, there can be no 
complaint that we are impeding upon the imperial Presidency's funding 
levels, because somehow if the President's people fund it, it makes it 
okay. I don't agree with that. We put headroom in the bill this year 
that they cannot make that claim anymore.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Missouri 
will control 4 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, allow me to stand up for this provision in which my 
friend Mr. Hobson and our subcommittee and staff have worked so hard to 
assemble.
  We talk big about energy independence, Mr. Chairman, but here we are 
discussing Mr. Flake's amendment today because some of us talk the talk 
but we don't walk the walk. The Missouri Forest Foundation would get 
$750,000 from a $30 billion budget to help solve the crisis of our 
time, American reliance on foreign oil.
  I believe that most of our colleagues would agree that this 
investment would pay off by finding a viable source of cellulosic 
ethanol in wood waste from mostly unmanageable parts of our forests.
  As a source of green energy, cellulosic ethanol is limited only by 
our ability to harvest small trees from overgrown, unmanaged forests 
and generate cellulosic ethanol on a profitable scale. This project 
would remove many of those barriers to our energy market, and in the 
meantime, we will add value to our forests, 14 million acres of them in 
Missouri alone, and will create another value-added product to help our 
rural economist.
  We talk a lot and we have been talking a lot lately in this body 
about the future of alternative fuels. This project is how we also walk 
the walk, and I believe it is unconscionable to turn our backs on any 
project to put something besides oil in the tanks of American cars and 
trucks, especially when it is one that is as promising as this.
  Yet there is also, Mr. Chairman, a larger issue at work here: Who do 
you trust with these tax dollars? Some Members put their trust in the 
Office of Management and Budget to choose what is best for their 
districts, and some Members, well, they choose to put their trust in 
their districts back home. I trust my district, and I trust the men and 
women behind this project. Together we worked on this proposal. It was 
my idea, and we brought it to the Congress.
  So now, at this point, Congress can say yes or no. But as others have 
said before me, I am standing up for my district, and I say it is 
worthwhile and we should invest in it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before yielding 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, 
let me just say that we are again faced with a false choice here. The 
notion is, should we spend it, or should the administration spend it? 
Perhaps it shouldn't be spent at all.
  I would submit, if we are spending $700,000 or so for the end-of-life 
electronics project in West Virginia, we are spending too much money, 
the government is as a whole, whether it is us or whether it is the 
administration.
  So the choice isn't, should we spend it or should they? Maybe we 
should just have a smaller budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I will be the first to admit that I know little or nothing about this 
particular earmark, but here is what I do know: We need to step back 
and focus on the larger picture of where we are as a nation. In just a 
handful of years, the national debt has gone from $5.5 trillion to $8 
trillion. Now, some will tell us it is because the American people are 
undertaxed. We happen to be awash in tax revenues. They were up 14 
percent last year.
  I think the problem that we have is we have a spending problem. We 
look at the long-term trends in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, 
we simply cannot keep with the pace in spending. We have 10,000 Federal 
programs spread across 600 agencies. How much government is enough?
  This may be a great earmark. I don't know. It could be the greatest 
earmark known to mankind. But when do we finally say, enough is enough? 
It reminds me of what President Reagan once said, ``the closest thing 
to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program,'' and every earmark can 
give birth to a Federal program.
  We are spending $22,000 per American family. When do we stop?
  Mr. Chairman, I think the challenge we have is, if we say yes to 
everybody's project today, we end up saying no to our children's future 
tomorrow. So when we are a nation that has this type of debt, when we 
have the recent announcement that Social Security is going to go broke 
a year earlier than thought, Medicare 2 years earlier, when do we stop 
and say, enough is enough? When do we say no to somebody's project 
today so we can say yes to our children tomorrow?
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
comments. It couldn't be more true. At what point, where do we say, 
let's stop? We have grown earmarks in the past decade 872 percent. When 
is it enough? Do we earmark every account in the

[[Page H3206]]

Federal Government? Do we look at those agencies and say, we know 
better than you do?
  What about the maintenance accounts that they have? What about other 
things that they come back to us the next year and say, you shorted us? 
You earmarked this account. Now we still have to maintain this runway 
or this tower or perform this maintenance, and then we have to up the 
funding again.
  I will say again, my colleague in the Senate described earmarks as 
``the gateway drug to spending addiction.'' Once we start with 
earmarks, we just can't stop spending in other areas.
  I would submit that if you look at the Federal budget growth over the 
past several years, a lot of it is due to earmarks, simply because you 
get earmarks and they leverage higher spending everywhere else.
  You look at how few votes there are against these appropriation bills 
in the end when you know more people are opposed to much more in the 
provisions. It is because they have earmarks, and they have to support 
it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The gentlewoman from Missouri has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Again, we are here debating these things and whether some of these 
things ought to be funded at all. There are programs that are not 
requested in the President's budget which some of us feel are 
appropriate. Some of them would be things like money to reimburse 
States for criminal costs associated with illegal immigration. The 
President hasn't requested that in his budget, but many of us feel it 
is appropriate that it ought to be put in there. I believe even the 
gentleman from Arizona believes that that is an appropriate thing.
  Now, of course, if we would put that in there, that would be an 
earmark, because it would be Congress directing the spending rather 
than the administration making that request.
  Earlier the gentleman mentioned the NREL laboratory and the fact that 
they had to lay off something like 32 people. What wasn't said is that 
this committee gave them unlimited reprogramming authority, that if 
that was going to happen, they could have reprogrammed the money. But 
they didn't do that. They chose not to use it. They chose to lay the 
people off. And then, magically, when the President was going to come 
out there for a press conference, guess what? They found the money to 
rehire those individuals. At the same time, the Secretary goes to, I 
believe it was Australia, and announces a new program down there 
without any funding authority whatsoever.
  So to suggest that things done by the administration are appropriate 
but things done by Congress are inappropriate and, as the gentleman and 
I have talked many times, the fact is you are not going to reduce 
spending by eliminating these things. You are going to do it by getting 
a budget resolution which is lower so that that money isn't available.
  But I guarantee you if you cut out this money, or any of these other 
earmarked projects, the money is going to be spent on something else. 
That is the reality, and that is what we have to address.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding. I 
certainly associate myself with her remarks and am opposed to the 
amendment.
  I would respond to an earlier remark made by the gentleman from Texas 
when he complained about the deficits. There are two sides to balancing 
the budget. There is the expenditure side, and I do think the debate 
taking place here is very healthy. I would hope that the gentleman 
would also have the same debate initiated as far as the 70 percent of 
the spending taking place. And that is mandatory spending. And those 
tax provisions, once they are a precedent to the Tax Code, inure to the 
benefit, the last time I look, of people that pay taxes, which are not 
units of the government, but private citizens and private corporations.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in Congress understands our need to 
get away from the addiction we have to oil, and anything we can do to 
develop alternative sources of energy is critical to our national and 
our economic security.
  I want to say, too, the appropriations process is local control at 
its highest level, and we have to keep this authority within the 
Congress and not abdicate our responsibility to represent our own 
districts.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Flake amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for Juniata Ultra Low Emission Locomotive 
     Demonstration, PA.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this will be my final amendment, at the risk of hearing 
cheers from the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. Chairman, this is $1 million for the Juniata locomotive shop. I 
believe that it goes to a locomotive shop owned by Norfolk Southern. I 
can't know for sure, because there is no description of the earmark 
anywhere in the bill.
  Let me read a quote from Norfolk Southern Chairman David Goode in 
2005: ``Thinking back to the beginning of my rail career in the late 
1960s and early 1970s, rail systems were failing badly. There were 
strongly held beliefs that we were headed for a failed and nationalized 
system. In that context, you began to realize the strength of an 
industry that rebuilt itself, albeit with a lot of government policy 
help, although essentially no government money.''
  But now it seems that we are giving them money as well.
  Again, here is a situation where we know so little about this 
earmark, and this seems to be the only forum where we can find out 
about it. When we come and debate it on the floor, we might get a 
little window into the process and see what this is about: Has this 
been authorized? What is the process of oversight? That is what we are 
here for.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to my 
colleague's amendment, which seeks to eliminate an important research 
and development program that would take place in the Juniata locomotive 
shop, which is in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Yes, that is my district. I am 
proud to stand up and take claim for this earmark.

                              {time}  2100

  But I am also proud to stand up and say this has been authorized. 
This has gone through the authorization program, and it has gone 
through the appropriations committees.
  In the 2005 Energy Bill that we passed, the Diesel Emission Reduction 
Act of 2005, we are pushing, we are prodding, we are forcing our 
companies in this country to reduce emissions. And when we are 
encouraging and when we are prodding and forcing people to do that, 
companies to do that, I think that we have an obligation to assist in 
getting those things developed

[[Page H3207]]

and doing the public and private assistance that comes together to 
reduce emissions, especially in our aging diesel fleet in the rail 
industry.
  In 2006, the rail industry will embark on a new program to produce 
cleaner locomotives that utilize conventional truck engines to charge 
large stacks of batteries that power locomotives. In this account also 
there is a 50/50 match on this legislation. But what this earmark does, 
it is a 90/10. Norfolk Southern is providing 90 percent of the funding 
to do this important research and develop this initiative, and the 
taxpayers are putting in 10 percent.
  This new hybrid locomotive will reduce harmful emissions, increase 
fuel efficiency and take locomotive research and development in a new 
direction.
  The freight rail industry consumed over 4 billion gallons of diesel 
fuel in 2005 and freight rail traffic has grown at unprecedented levels 
in the past 3 years. Finding new technologies to save fuel in the 
movement of freight will benefit everybody.
  Additionally, it is important to note that any technology gains from 
this project and research development will be open to the public. So 
this a 10 percent investment by the public, and everybody will benefit. 
General Electric will benefit. The other rail companies will benefit by 
this research and development.
  Further, Mr. Chairman, this is about more than just reducing energy 
use. It is about improving our environment.
  I prefer working cooperatively with the private sector to reduce 
harmful emissions of nitrous oxide, hydrocarbons, and particulate 
matter. This program seeks to accomplish this as well.
  Last year, America's freight rail industry spent nearly $1 billion on 
new locomotive purchases. This money helped buy newer, more fuel 
efficient equipment.
  While the newer locomotives are 40 percent more fuel efficient than 
just a decade ago, we need to take the next step in moving emissions 
reductions to extremely low levels, something we cannot accomplish with 
conventional locomotive engines.
  This program will encourage industry to work on a prototype hybrid 
ultra-low emissions locomotive that will reduce nitrous oxide emissions 
by 80 to 90 percent, which is the primary component of smog, reduce 
diesel fuel consumption by 40 percent and lower particulate matter by 
80 percent.
  In a time when increasing fuel efficiency and reducing dependence on 
foreign sources of energy are vital to ensuring our Nation's energy 
independence, we should be encouraging public-private partnerships that 
seek to further these goals.
  We need to build on our Nation's advantages, one of which is the best 
freight rail system in the world, which helps us compete globally. By 
making this mode even more fuel efficient, it will be reducing costs of 
transportation to our Nation's consumers and making the air we breath 
even cleaner.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleague from Arizona to withdraw 
the amendment, but, if not, I hope my colleagues will support me and 
vote down this amendment. This initiative, if enacted, it will, by 
2008, will have hybrid locomotives as well as hybrid cars moving us 
into the future.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, might I ask how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hobson) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just make the point that why would we assist 
only the locomotive sector? What about construction vehicles, highway 
vehicles? Again, we are picking and choosing, just based on our 
decisions. We are not the font of all knowledge.
  And if we decide that we are just going to direct every bit of 
spending and that we are not going to have oversight because we have 
directed it and therefore we need no oversight, and all we have in 
terms of oversight is this 5 minutes that we have really never 
exercised before to question an earmark when it comes to the House 
floor, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that we have a broken process here. 
It is simply wrong. We cannot be doing this.
  Again, let me just simply say, when do we concede that we are out of 
control? It was 5,000. We are up to over 10,000 earmarks a year. When 
it is too much?
  In 1987, President Reagan vetoed the highway bill because there were 
152 earmarks. The last highway bill we passed last year had over 6,000. 
Other bills have had similar increases in earmarks. And yet we say it 
is not enough.
  If we know our own districts and we know how to direct spending, then 
why not direct it all? Why not earmark every account?
  Again, we have demonstrated again and again, some of the authors of 
these amendments have not even shown up to defend them. We do not even 
know if there is any oversight for previous earmarks or for the ones 
that are here now. Yet we just blindly just say, all right, if a Member 
wants it, let's approve it.
  I would simply submit that we have got to stop that. We have got to 
stop that. We are out of control. We have a fiscal train wreck coming 
up when it comes to entitlement spending and discretionary spending.
  And this notion again that cutting those earmarks is not going to 
save money because it will simply be spent by the government agency is 
simply not true. All the committee had to do was the 302 allocations, 
and then they can simply say let's designate that for war funding. We 
know we are going to spend that money. You can reallocate before you 
report the bill out of committee.
  So this notion that, okay, we are here, we might as well spend it or 
the administration will, that is simply a false choice. We are here as 
legislators. Again, as I said yesterday, we are not potted plants. I 
think taxpayers expect us to make hard choices, and we are not making 
them.
  We are basically saying, if you can justify a project in your 
district, if you think it is a good idea, then we ought to fund it, by 
golly, and there ought to be very little oversight, because you know 
what is best for your district.
  That is not the best way to go. We are not the font of all knowledge. 
We cannot outguess the market. We try and try and we will come up with 
an example of where this earmark led to this discovery or that, and we 
ignore that when we take money from the taxpayers and spend it on a 
teapot museum or on the Punxsutawney Weather Museum in Pennsylvania or 
on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame or on the Baseball Hall of Fame, then 
we are taking money we should not take from the taxpayers at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, going to the Rock and Roll Hall of 
Fame, it is a beautiful place.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not request this earmark; Mr. Shuster did. I 
think he has adequately defended it. I would rise, as the chairman of 
the Railroad Subcommittee, to tell the gentleman, in 2004, the EPA 
identified 495 counties across America, maybe some in your district, 
that are not in attainment.
  The purpose of this program, as Mr. Shuster laid out, is to reduce 
emissions and increase fuel efficiency; And he went through what it is 
going to flock out of the air. I would tell the gentleman, because I 
listened carefully to his discussion of the previous appropriations 
bill and this one, this is authorized. We did it in the Energy Act, 
$200 million a year for the next 5 years, $49 million is provided for 
these programs in the President's budget this year.
  I know the gentleman is busy. But if he ever has a free moment and 
you want to come to the Railroad Subcommittee, we did in fact conduct 
oversight hearings on programs like this, talking about the new 
technologies, talking about the public-private partnerships that are 
going to get us into the next century.
  Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman, because of programs like 
this we are now able to move a ton of cargo from New York to Boston on 
one gallon of diesel fuel; and thanks to Mr. Shuster's innovations and 
foresight in earmarking this program, we are going to do it without 
polluting the air.
  So I hope the gentleman reconsiders this amendment. It is authorized, 
and we have had oversight.

[[Page H3208]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason I am standing here is to engage the chairman 
of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee in a 
colloquy.
  First of all, I want to just take a second to commend Chairman Hobson 
and the ranking member and the Appropriations Subcommittee staff for 
their outstanding work in the difficulty in bringing some of these 
measures before the floor, for their hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, my Florida district includes the coastline along 
Flagler County, which has been dramatically devastated by recent 
hurricanes and damaging storms. The beach has steadily eroded; and 
sections of our historic and scenic national highway A1A have been 
washed away by the storms. Because some of the road has fallen into the 
Atlantic Ocean, the Florida Department of Transportation has installed 
a temporary seawall in those areas.
  Initially, we had some problems in reaching a local consensus on the 
best way to restore the beach and secure this scenic and coastal 
highway. However, with hurricane season approaching, if this vital 
highway falls, our only emergency route in this area could be lost.
  Earlier this month, I brought together our local leaders and 
decisionmakers to discuss the problem and identify solutions. A 
consensus has been reached that we must complete a feasibility study 
and cooperate with the Corps of Engineers so the critical restoration 
work can be expedited. State and local officials will also be working 
together with Federal officials to explore cost-effective alternative 
restoration technologies.
  I would like to, finally, ask the chairman if he would continue to 
work with me on this very important project for my district and also in 
conference to provide the critical resources to protect and restore the 
coastal areas and devastated beaches in Flagler County, Florida.
  Mr. HOBSON. I have seen the pictures that you have given me, and I 
certainly understand the problem there in Florida. We will try to work 
with you every way we can. Because I have seen it. It has fallen in, 
and it has got to be fixed.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and the subcommittee.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to 
take this opportunity to praise Chairman Hobson and the ranking member, 
Mr. Visclosky, for putting together this well-balanced bill. I applaud 
the chairman for his efforts in bringing this measure to the floor.
  I rise, though, to ask a question of you, Mr. Chairman, because I am 
concerned with the provision added to the bill during the committee 
markup. The bill as currently written provides $10 million for the 
Department of Energy's Clean Cities Program. This program is devoted to 
the advancement and usage of alternative fuels.
  In my home State of New Hampshire, the Granite State Clean Cities 
Coalition has done wonderful things, including the construction of a 
biodiesel filling station for off-road vehicles, support for the 
development of 10 public on-road biodiesel fueling stations, and the 
creation of natural gas refueling stations for the University of New 
Hampshire's bus fleet.
  At a time when gasoline is well above $3 a gallon, I believe now more 
than ever we need to support programs that promote the use of 
alternative fuels and vehicles. However, during the committee markup, a 
provision was added that would set aside $8 million of the Clean Cities 
$10 million for E-85 ethanol infrastructure.
  While I fully support the development of new E-85 stations, however, 
the Clean Cities Program has always been fuel neutral, awarding funds 
through a competitive process based on the merit of each project. I 
fear that allocating 80 percent of the program's funds for only one 
type of alternative fuel alters the competitive intent of that program.
  Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask to be able to work with you 
during the committee of conference to try and rectify this issue. I 
thank you for yielding.
  Mr. HOBSON. We will work with you. But I want you to understand that 
this was part of an amendment we accepted because we do want to 
encourage more E-85 use, and we were getting some complaints that there 
was not enough money out there.
  But I understand what it has done to this program. In conference we 
will try to work to see if we can get some more money on the program.
  Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. HOBSON. I would like to yield back on that and strike the last 
word if I might.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Let me take just a moment to say that this has been a 
very spirited debate out here this evening. But I think at the end of 
the day we have got a good bill. I would encourage support for the 
committee's positions.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have cut back the number of earmarks this 
year in an amount of over $200 million. We have stayed within our 
302(b) amount, and we have tried to take on the administration where we 
think appropriate, because I do not think everything they do is 
correct.

                              {time}  2115

  On the other hand, I do not think everything we do is correct, and we 
try to take that on where we can.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman yielding, and I appreciate 
your leadership on this bill.
  This is a finely crafted piece of legislation and, again, I 
congratulate the Chair and all the members of the committee and the 
staff, and I would encourage the membership to strongly support this 
legislation. It has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from 
Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. Thank you. I appreciate working with you, too, sir.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that 
the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Price of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. McHugh, Acting Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
5427) making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________