Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 66 (Wednesday, May 24, 2006)

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

{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.

{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.

{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.

____________________