[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6669-H6686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 481 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2641.

                              {time}  1045


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2641) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Davis of Alabama in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hobson) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to submit to the 
House for its consideration H.R. 2641, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008.
  I want to first thank all the members of the Energy and Water 
Development Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the 
floor today. I particularly want to thank my partner and ranking 
member, Mr. Hobson of Ohio, for his extraordinary friendship and 
cooperation this year.
  I would parenthetically point out that for the last 8 years, Mr. 
Hobson has come to this floor as chairman of an appropriations 
subcommittee to manage a bill. I am wiser and richer because of the 
advice and counsel of Mr. Hobson throughout the development of this 
bill, and I thank my friend deeply.
  This is a truly bipartisan bill that represents a fair and balanced 
compromise. I believe this is the way our constituents expect 
Representatives to work together, and I am proud of our bipartisan 
process. I also want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Mr. Obey, and the ranking minority member, Mr. Lewis, for 
their support.
  And I deeply want to thank all of the staff of the subcommittee, 
Dixon Butler, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, Taunja Berquam, Lori 
Maes, Kevin Cook, Rob Blair, and Ben Nicholson, for their very hard 
work on this bill. I want to also thank both Shari Davenport of my 
office and Kenny Kraft of Mr. Hobson's office. And I would also 
acknowledge our agency detailee, Chris Frabotta from the Corps of 
Engineers, for his assistance in putting this bill and report together. 
These people form a great team and their work has been invaluable. I 
would also note for the membership that Chris has served two tours of 
duty in Iraq as part of the Army Corps of Engineers and Taunja has also 
served our country in Iraq on one tour also with the Army Corps of 
Engineers.
  Total funding for the Energy and Water Development in fiscal year 
2008 is $31.603 billion. This bill cuts lower priority programs. These 
spending cuts include 37 programs in weapons under the Department of 
Energy, totaling $632 million below the President's request, and 20 
other programs, totaling $280 million below the President's request.
  On the other hand, this bill funds the most worthwhile projects and 
programs at or above the requested level. It reduces some programs that 
are less valuable or less urgent and redirects funding from previous 
years that has not been obligated or spent.
  All our constituents are in shock at the high price of gas. There is 
nearly half a billion dollars provided in this bill for research, 
development, and demonstration efforts in biofuels and vehicle 
technologies. I would also note that this subcommittee has been working 
to provide additional funding for this critical area for 3 years, first 
of all, under the leadership of Mr. Hobson and, more recently, myself. 
We are today funding above the President's request for biofuels and 
vehicle technologies over fiscal year 2006. Together we again increase 
funding in 2007, and this subcommittee this year made additional 
investments in vehicle technologies and biofuels for fiscal year 2008. 
Compared to the President's 2006 request, the subcommittee has worked 
in a bipartisan fashion to address the energy crisis by increasing 
funding for these areas by over 100 percent.
  These efforts will not bring down the price of gas immediately, but 
they will help put us on a path to decrease dependence on imported oil 
and greater fuel efficiency. These are critical steps we must take 
today.
  One of the reasons for our current energy price crisis is the past 
lack of investment in energy. In fiscal year 2006, adjusted for 
inflation, government funding for energy research, development, and 
demonstration had fallen to less than one-quarter of its 1980 levels. 
In the fiscal year 2007 year-long continuing resolution, Congress began 
to address this by increasing funding for energy efficiency and 
renewable energy activities at the Department of Energy by $300 
million. For example, in fiscal year 2006, adjusted for inflation, 
government funding for conservation R&D

[[Page H6670]]

was 49.2 percent of where it was in 1980. This year it will be 68.7 
percent. The bill provides increased funding for energy efficiency and 
renewable energy that is $400 million above 2007 levels.
  Energy consumption can be cut in the near term through increased 
funding for weatherization assistance. This bill provides $245 million 
in weatherization grants and is an increase of $100 million from the 
President's request. In addition, the bill redirects fossil energy 
funding to emphasize carbon capture and sequestration.
  Increased funding is included for nuclear energy as well, balancing 
support for licensing new light water nuclear reactors, the kind that 
currently provide 20 percent of our electricity, for demonstrating the 
safer Gen IV helium-cooled nuclear reactor technology and for research 
and development, particularly on the nuclear fuel cycle.
  Nuclear weapons or weapons material in the hands of terrorists is 
acknowledged by the President and others to be the number one terrorist 
threat to the United States. The Department of Energy takes the lead in 
combating this threat by advancing international efforts to prevent 
nuclear proliferation with an $878 million, or 74 percent, increase to 
the President's proposed operating level for legitimate nuclear 
nonproliferation programs.
  Testimony before our committee has made clear that there are 
significant opportunities for protecting such nuclear material where it 
exists, enhancing monitoring systems that detect it should it be moved 
illegitimately, and transferring it to safer locations. This bill also 
redirects funding provided in 1999 but never spent to initiate a 
nuclear fuel bank under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency. This fuel bank, conceived originally by former Senator Nunn and 
others, is intended to remove the motivation for countries that wish to 
rely on nuclear energy to develop their own uranium enrichment 
capabilities. This is the precise concern that the U.S. and many other 
nations have today with the country of Iran.
  Nuclear nonproliferation activities have included parallel efforts 
for the United States and Russia to dispose of surplus weapons-origin 
plutonium. The U.S. has pursued fabrication of mixed oxide fuels, so-
called MOX, for use in commercial nuclear reactors followed by disposal 
in Yucca Mountain as its strategy. It is assumed that Russia will 
eventually agree to follow a similar path. Russia prefers a different 
path to dispose of its weapons-origin plutonium by using it to fuel 
breeder reactors. This approach would result in more plutonium, not 
less. The administration and the defense authorizers ended a direct 
linkage between the U.S. and Russian programs last year. Therefore, 
with no expectation of any Russian plutonium disposition occurring 
under this program, the U.S. MOX facility is no longer a nuclear 
nonproliferation activity. And very importantly, and I would emphasize 
this, the subcommittee transfers the project to the nuclear energy 
program along with enough funding to allow construction to proceed. 
This funding for MOX will be accompanied by continuous oversight. This 
subcommittee will closely monitor the progress of the MOX facility. If 
mistakes continue to be made, the Department of Energy will find it 
very difficult to make a successful case for any further support.
  Without question, Mr. Chairman, there is a need for a comprehensive 
nuclear defense strategy and stockpile plan to guide transformation and 
downsizing of the stockpile nuclear weapons complex; and until progress 
is made on this crucial issue, there will be no new facilities or 
Reliable Replacement Warhead. Only when a future nuclear weapons 
strategy is established can the Department of Energy determine the 
requirements for the future of nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear 
weapons complex.
  Further, testimony before this subcommittee has pointed to the 
potential for the international community to misunderstand development 
by the United States of a new nuclear weapon. Moreover, for the last 
decade, the administration has said that stockpile stewardship was a 
path to maintain the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear 
stockpile. Now, with three major facilities that we were told were 
needed for stockpile stewardship all overbudget, all over their 
deadlines, and all not completed, we are told ``let's do something 
else.''
  Given the serious international and domestic consequences of the U.S. 
initiating a new nuclear weapons production activity, it is critical 
that the administration lay out a comprehensive course of action before 
funding is appropriated. Major transformation of the weapons complex 
can only be produced with significant bipartisan support, lasting over 
multiple sections of Congress and multiple administrations. Given the 
track record of mismanagement at the agency for projects that have a 
plan, I don't think it is asking too much for a comprehensive nuclear 
strategy before we build a new nuclear weapon.
  People work hard for their money before they pay their Federal taxes. 
The Department of Energy has squandered vast sums of this money. 
Project management at the Department of Energy must be reformed. The 
Department of Energy is the largest civilian contracting agency of the 
Federal Government and spends over 90 percent of its annual budget on 
contracts. In 1990 the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, began 
an annual assessment resulting in a list of programs that are at high 
risk for waste, abuse, and mismanagement. DOE contract management has 
been on that list year in and year out for 17-long miserable years. GAO 
has found that since October 2002, alone, DOE has achieved its 
performance goal of implementing projects within 10 percent of cost and 
schedule baselines only about one-third of the time.
  One of the management failures is the waste treatment plant at 
Hanford, Washington, where the construction cost overrun now exceeds $8 
billion. This is just one example of inexcusable, ineffective, and 
wasteful project management at the Department of Energy. DOE's 
inability to effectively manage critical projects has real consequences 
for our Nation and calls into question their ability to ensure that we 
are prepared to meet important challenges.
  In the bill, DOE is directed to work with the GAO to develop a 
concrete plan to get off the GAO high-risk list.
  There are also elements in this bill, important ones, dedicated to 
the environmental cleanup responsibilities of the Department and for 
the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as the Bureau of Reclamation.
  I do believe, Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill and would 
recommend it to my colleagues' attention and would request their 
support.
  Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, let me thank Mr. Obey, the chairman of the committee, 
for his good work with us on this bill. And I want to add my support to 
Chairman Visclosky on doing a good job on his first bill, and I will 
talk about that a little bit further.
  This is the first Energy and Water appropriation bill that my 
colleague from Indiana has developed and brought to the floor. The 
first one, I found out, is always the hardest one, but he has done a 
great job and it is a good bill; and I have certainly enjoyed working 
with him this year in a new position for me also as the ranking member 
on this bill.
  It certainly helps to have an allocation that is $1.1 billion over 
the administration's request. However, I do not disagree with the major 
funding decision that the chairman has made in this bill.
  This bill is a very thoughtful approach to some very difficult 
issues, including investing in our Nation's water infrastructure, 
developing domestic energy sources with less impact on global climate, 
and fostering our national security through rational efforts on nuclear 
nonproliferation and nuclear weapons.
  I want to comment briefly on a couple of specific programs and 
projects, including several that Chairman Visclosky has just recently 
discussed. I fully support the increased spending for water resources 
infrastructure. We have chronically underinvested in this 
infrastructure in recent years both in this administration and, 
frankly, in the previous administration.

                              {time}  1100

  And the hurricanes of 2005 taught us some very hard lessons about the 
consequences of such underinvestment.

[[Page H6671]]

  The Corps already has a significant backlog of construction projects, 
a backlog that, frankly, is only going to get larger with the next 
Water Resources Development Act, which we don't have the money to fund 
that.
  I'm very pleased that the chairman maintains the continuing contracts 
and financial management reforms for the Army Civil Works program. 
These reforms are critical if the Corps is to get its house in order, 
and if it is to make responsible use of the $5.5 billion we provide in 
this bill. And let me say that not fixing the Corps' problems has cost 
us a lot of money, because when we don't complete projects on time or 
don't complete parts of projects, those projects grow in cost and it 
makes the problem even worse. And therefore, the underfunding of this 
by the administration, and not just this administration, but previous 
administrations, has not been helpful.
  I generally agree with the majority's priorities for the Department 
of Energy. It is essential that we develop advanced energy technologies 
that increase our energy security by reducing greenhouse gas emissions 
and lessening our dependence on foreign oil. However, I will caution 
that increased spending on these technologies is no guarantee of 
increased results, especially at the Department of Energy.
  I want to briefly talk on this subject of loan guarantees. I will 
state up front that I have no confidence whatsoever that the Department 
of Energy is capable of managing this program in a responsible manner. 
That said, I recognize the congressional and industry pressure in favor 
of loan guarantees.
  You may hear two complaints about our bill, that we do not provide 
the full administration request of $9 billion for loan guarantees, and 
that we did not include nuclear power plants in the $7 billion. Those 
criticisms miss one essential fact: that Congress already provided DOE 
with $4 billion for loan guarantees in the fiscal year 2007 continuing 
resolution that was not restricted to any particular energy 
technologies. The Department could apply all $4 billion to nuclear 
power plants if they so choose. But let me tell you, they don't have 
any expertise over there on this, and it's going to be a mess because 
they don't know how to handle it and they don't know how to underwrite 
these loans. But they're going ahead with the program because Congress 
is pushing them into it.
  Now I want to talk about nuclear weapons.
  I share the majority's concerns on the reliable replacement warhead. 
The concept of RRW has merit if it allows us to have a smaller 
stockpile of more reliable weapons that will not require nuclear 
testing. But all we have right now is a vague promise. What we need to 
see is a significant stockpile plan from the administration that shows 
how developing the RRW will actually get us to a much smaller future 
stockpile. Such a stockpile plan is also essential before we invest 
significant resources in modernizing the DOE's nuclear weapons complex. 
For that reason our bill does not fund RRW, and makes roughly a 10 
percent reduction in the weapons account activities.
  We should not be spending billions to modernize a Cold War footprint 
of the weapons complex until the Department of Defense defines what 
kind of future stockpile DOE will have to support. I don't think most 
people are really aware of how this all works, but the Defense 
Department is the customer, DOE is the provider.
  I am aware that there are Members' and administration concerns about 
the effect these cuts may have on weapons facilities. I will address 
these concerns later in my discussions.
  Now let me talk about one that really gets me going.
  There is really only one place in this bill, and I see the chairman 
smiling, where I have a really significant difference of opinion with 
the majority, and that is funding for the MOX plant. For those Members 
who are not familiar with this project, let me do a little quick 
review.
  In early 2000, the United States and Russia agreed for each country 
to dispose of 34 metric tons of excess weapons-usable plutonium. Each 
country had a preferred technology for plutonium disposition. The U.S. 
wanted immobilization, and Russia wanted fast reactors. So, they 
reached a compromise to convert the plutonium into mixed oxide fuel to 
be burned in existing commercial lightwater reactors. The U.S. and 
Russia were supposed to proceed in parallel with their respective MOX 
projects. Well, guess what? The Russians are coming. Last year, Sergey 
Kiriyenko, the head of ROSATOM in Russia, told the chairman and myself 
that MOX is an obsolete and expensive technology, and Russia has no 
intention of building a MOX plant unless the international community 
pays 100 percent of the cost. If Russia has to spend any of its own 
money for plutonium disposition, then it will use fast reactors. He 
couldn't believe that we were dumb enough to still want to build a MOX 
plant in the United States. Well, guess what? We are going to build one 
because we are that dumb, I guess, because DOE and some in Congress 
still think we should proceed with construction of this plant.
  The project was sold to Congress as costing only $1 billion. That's 
where it started out. The latest estimate, and they haven't broken 
ground yet, is $4.7 billion. And that's before construction actually 
starts. Given DOE's dismal track record of controlling costs, the final 
price tag will certainly be much higher. The total set of facilities 
and operations that must be completed to dispose of the 34 metric tons 
of U.S. plutonium has an estimated life-cycle cost of $11 billion. And 
the project is now a mere 11 years behind schedule.
  So, what has been the response of this cost growth and schedule 
slipping and the Russian abandonment of the MOX approach? The 
authorizers delinked the U.S. and Russia project, meaning they want the 
U.S. MOX project to go forward with or without any Russian progress. 
The U.S. material, frankly, is not at risk. What we really wanted to do 
was to eliminate the 34 metric tons of the Russians. So now, what is 
the incentive for the Russians to go forward and eliminate theirs? So, 
we lost all our leverage.
  This is not about nonprolifieration, it's all about jobs and economic 
development in South Carolina. Without any competition, DOE picked the 
Savannah Rivers site as the place for the MOX project. Some claim that 
South Carolina only accepted this mission with great reluctance, and 
insisted on DOE building a MOX plant so that plutonium would have an 
assured path out of the State. Well, that argument is bogus for two 
reasons.
  First, the 34 metric tons of plutonium is not presently at Savannah 
River. The vast majority of it is stored at the Pantex plant in Texas. 
The government does not have an obligation to get this material out of 
South Carolina because this material isn't in South Carolina.
  Second, some folks assume that construction operation of the MOX 
plant somehow guarantees this plutonium material will leave their 
State. Well, it doesn't. We have testimony on the record from DOE 
making very clear that Yucca Mountain will be full to its authorized 
capacity by the year 2010. Any material generated after that date, 
whether spent MOX reactor fuel or even vitrified plutonium, will remain 
in storage onsite until Yucca is expanded or a second repository is 
built. That means this plutonium material will remain in South Carolina 
for a long time. And during that time, they're going to be able to sue 
us for $100 million a year because we haven't moved it. Does this sound 
dumb? Does this sound like smart business? Not to this Member.

  I had high hopes that the Secretary of Energy had the background and 
skills to make a real difference at DOE, and certainly on this project 
he could have made a difference. But I have lost confidence in him, and 
it started over his unwillingness to change course on the MOX project 
when circumstances changed.
  There is plenty of blame to go around. Not only has the 
administration stubbornly insisted on ``staying the course'' on this 
troubled project, but the authorizing committees with jurisdiction have 
failed to exercise oversight and taken action on MOX. Even the fiscal 
conservatives in my own party, who were so anxious to criticize every 
earmark, miss the fact that this project will waste $11 billion of 
taxpayer dollars. I want you to know under my watch, when I was 
chairman of this, we gave it zero funding. And I would have liked to 
have done that. But I understand the pressures on the

[[Page H6672]]

chairmen on both the committee and the subcommittee. And frankly, they 
have reduced the level significantly from the requested amount.
  I really appreciate the fact that the chairman of the full committee 
and Mr. Visclosky made a statement, the statement was actually by Mr. 
Visclosky and supported by Chairman Obey. And the chairman said, ``The 
MOX plant is one of only a few construction activities supported in the 
bill. And DOE is put on notice that the first sign of significant cost 
growth, schedule slip or requirements change, the committee will shut 
this project down.'' In future years, maybe this project will run off 
the rails, and I want Members to see what happens here.
  I offered to the administration and to others not to build this plant 
the way they're building it. I think it's silly to build 34 metric ton 
capacity and then have to tear the plant down and send it out to Utah 
and put it underground. What I really wanted to do, and offered to do, 
was build a plant that we could design up front to where we could do 
other types of fuels in this, rather than the weapons-grade plutonium, 
but nobody seems to be listening anywhere at this point. But I do 
appreciate the full chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee and 
their comments.
  I want to talk about the policy on earmarks. I think we've got that 
straightened out now. I wish it had been in this bill, but I think it's 
going to move forward. And I think we fail in our responsibility if we 
don't do oversight. I think it's good to take out both the President's 
earmarks and our earmarks. I did that before. Any new starts that were 
in the bill, I took them out when I was chairman, and I want to 
congratulate the chairman now for doing the same thing. We need to 
provide more oversight.
  I really get upset that the way the Corps of Engineers is done today 
is we get no real input into that. It's all basically done by an agency 
within the White House and by some people that we don't even meet with 
and we don't even know. They are saying what's going to go forward in 
somebody's community or not going forth in somebody's community; and 
frankly, we're here and know our communities better than somebody in 
some agency that we can't find.
  I want to just conclude by saying I am pleased that Chairman 
Visclosky has continued the bipartisan cooperation in this bill. I am 
proud to be a part of a subcommittee that focuses on getting the job 
done efficiently and does not let partisanship get in the way of doing 
the right thing for the American people.
  This subcommittee could not get the job done so well without 
exceptional staff. I want to thank Dixon Butler, Taunja Berquam, Scott 
Burnison, Terry Tyborowski and Lori Maes on the majority side for their 
hard work and dedication. I might say, many of those people worked when 
I was the chairman before, and I thank the majority for keeping them, 
and for the good work that all of them have done.
  I also want to thank Chris Frabotta, our Corps detailee this year, 
who comes from the Corps' Wilmington District and has served in Iraq. I 
also want to thank Kevin Cook, Ben Nicholson and Rob Blair on our 
minority subcommittee staff, and Shari Davenport on the chairman's 
personal staff and Kenny Kraft on my staff for a great job. We have all 
worked together on this bill for a number of years, and we are 
continuing to do that.
  I just really want to thank my chairman, my partner on this bill. I 
frankly intend to be as good a partner to the chairman as he was to me 
when I was the chairman. And the only way we can solve some of the 
problems of the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy is, 
frankly, for us to continue working together.
  Despite my concerns about the level of spending without congressional 
direction, I intend to support this bill to the full. And I encourage 
the other members of the committee to do so as well.
  Once again, I thank the chairman for his courtesy, and I look forward 
to working with him for a number of years.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would just make a few comments. One 
is, I do not believe that Mr. Hobson was on the floor when I thanked 
him for his sage advice.
  As he mentioned in his opening remarks, as I did in mine, he has 
chaired eight times and has brought bills to the floor eight times on 
appropriation subcommittees. He has been a great friend and a great 
teacher. I would suggest that the mistakes I make are my own and not a 
failure of Mr. Hobson or the ably trained staff on the committee.
  I would also simply point out in all seriousness that the 
differences, so to speak, between Mr. Hobson and myself on MOX are 
marginal and at a matter of degrees. We are agreed as far as the 
failure of the Department of Energy and their management practices. We 
are agreed that they are forewarned that they had better not make one 
mistake in South Carolina on this project. And I would very strongly 
emphasize that the moneys for MOX are where they should be and where I 
certainly want them to remain, and that is within the energy programs 
of the Department of Energy because MOX no longer has anything to do 
with proliferation, and if left in that account, would have eaten half 
of that very important program alive from a monetary standpoint.

                              {time}  1115

  I would emphasize this is not simply an issue of money, but keeping 
that money in its appropriate account, and that is in the energy 
account at the Department of Energy. Again I would thank the gentleman 
for his words on this project on this House floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I 
want to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from 
Ohio for doing a first-rate piece of work on this legislation. They 
know their business, they work with each other well, and I am proud of 
both of them. I would like to discuss two matters. The first is the 
question of congressional earmarks, and the second is the actual 
substance of this bill.
  We have seen much attention paid over the past several months to the 
practice of Congress earmarking certain projects.
  This bill is a project-oriented bill, and so there will be quite a 
lot of that going on before the bill is finished. But I would like to 
put that in context. The fact is that the administration has requested 
far more dollars for earmark projects for this bill than the Congress 
traditionally provides.
  Example: in fiscal year 2006, which is the last year we had a 
completed bill, the President asked for 987 specific earmark projects 
in the budget for the Army Corps of Engineers, costing $3.8 billion. 
The Congress appropriated $1.1 billion for projects that it ranked as 
high priority.
  The result: 77 percent of the Army Corps budget went for projects 
earmarked by the administration; 23 percent went for projects earmarked 
by the Congress of the United States.
  In fact, this is a copy of the report for that 2006 bill. The list of 
administration project earmark requests goes on for 46 pages, and I 
would submit that if the administration had been Democratic, it would 
have been the same result.
  Now, how does the administration decide how to allocate money to 
specific projects? Here is what the instruction sheet reads for the 
Corps of Engineers: ``To be included in the recommended program and 
considered for the ceiling program for fiscal 2008, a construction 
project or separate element must be consistent with policy.''
  Well, guess what? That is the same policy that Congress provides. 
Projects have to be consistent with policy in order to be included.
  The document from the Army Corps of Engineers also says it must have 
a decision document for which executive branch review has been 
completed. And then it goes on to say, each project or separable 
element must meet at least one of nine criteria, which are listed. But 
then it goes on to say, ``however, the agency may propose to relax 
those criteria, to use additional criteria, or to include special 
cases.''
  Guess what? That is exactly what the Congress does in determining 
which projects it feels are high priority.

[[Page H6673]]

  Now, let's turn to 2008. This year, the administration has requested 
some 991 projects. If you string them end to end, that is how long 
their project list is for this year. I would submit, in the end, this 
will be a longer list than the project list provided by the Congress in 
this bill.
  So let me simply state that whether projects are funded because of 
directed spending on the part of the administration or directed 
spending on the part of the Congress, the result is the same: public 
money is expended on projects that either the executive branch or the 
legislative branch thinks represent high priority needs. So much for 
earmarks in this bill.
  Now, let me simply discuss the substance. There are three major areas 
of funding critical to our country's future in the bill: climate 
change, the energy crisis, and nuclear policy.
  This bill includes more than $1 billion above the President's request 
for climate change. Funding goes to energy research, for development 
and demonstration of energy technologies that don't release greenhouse 
gases. They include conservation, research and development, and 
demonstration to reduce energy consumption in buildings, vehicles and 
energy-intensive industries. They include deployment of conservation 
measures in Federal buildings. They include demonstration of capture 
and sequestration of carbon dioxide.
  In the 1970s, the United States responded to the energy crisis in 
those days with substantially increased funding for energy research, 
for development and demonstration. But with the collapse of oil prices 
in the eighties, the interests of the administrations and the interests 
of Congress, unfortunately, subsided. So the result is that by fiscal 
2006, after adjusting for inflation, research budgets for renewable 
energy were only 20 percent of what they were in real terms in 1980. 
Research budgets for fossil energy were only 25 percent of 1980 levels. 
Funding for conservation research was only 49 percent of 1980 levels.
  In the year-long continuing resolution which we passed just 3 months 
ago, we raised those percentages considerably. So 2007 funding for 
renewable energy was boosted up to 38 percent of 1980 levels, and 2007 
funding for conservation was boosted to 54 percent of 1980 levels.
  This bill continues that effort: 2008 funding for renewable energy 
will now under this bill be upped to 47 percent of 1980 levels, 2008 
funding for fossil energy will be upped to 31 percent of 1980 levels, 
and 2008 funding for conservation will be up to 67 percent of 1980 
levels.
  This bill also provides for a $2 billion operating level for the 
nuclear nonproliferation activities of the Department of Energy.
  This bill does not fund new nuclear weapons nor major new weapons 
facilities, because the administration has not developed a strategy for 
strategic nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era.
  So let me simply say in conclusion that this bill reverses a quarter 
century of decline in energy research. It increases critical funding to 
prevent nuclear weapons or material from falling into the hands of 
terrorists. It represents a responsibly balanced bill. I congratulate 
both gentlemen for producing this, and I would urge strong support for 
its passage.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the committee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to talk for a minute about process, because I 
have been on the Appropriations Committee 11 years and on this 
subcommittee for 9 years. I have served on half a dozen subcommittees 
of appropriations, and I have seen no subcommittees exert more or 
better oversight to the programs that they are responsible for than 
this committee.
  First under Chairman Hobson, now under Chairman Visclosky, the two 
have worked as brothers very effectively to hold accountable these 
agencies. You heard them both express consternation with the Department 
of Energy. In my 12\1/2\ years here, the first 6 years it was 
Democratic leadership of that Department, and now Republican leadership 
of that Department. Both could improve, and both must improve. But 
these gentlemen are trying to hold these programs accountable.
  There are two issues here on responsibility. One is just holding the 
line on spending. The other is exerting the Congress' responsibility to 
make sure these programs work and that we get the bang for the buck, 
spend the money and get the return. Oftentimes, the bureaucracy and the 
waste and the mismanagement are more important than the dollars that 
are being spent. They are doing something about it, and doing it 
extremely well.
  Now, I am also for holding the line on spending in a big way. But if 
you ask the American people right now which one of these appropriations 
bills should you be spending more money in, they would say energy 
independence first. It is the biggest national security issue we have 
now. It is the confluence of the natural environment, our energy 
independence, and national security.
  So all I would say is, let's be careful we are not penny-wise and 
pound-foolish. We should be spending more money on renewables and 
energy efficiency and energy research. We should be trying to encourage 
biomass and new fuels and new vehicles. So let's be careful, okay?
  I definitely want to hold the line on spending. There are going to be 
some vetoes, and rightly so. But I want to make sure that this 
particular bill at the end of the day better funds these programs that 
we are all for.
  Remember, ``conservative'' means conserve energy, save energy, more 
efficient energy. These are important programs. They can be managed 
better.
  This is also the bill that funds nuclear nonproliferation, a big 
issue right now. We have got weapons activities. Heather Wilson of New 
Mexico spoke at our conference this morning about things that actually 
are not in this bill and should be in this bill.
  So this is the beginning of the process. I know Senator Domenici is 
going to weigh in. I love it, because these House leaders have given 
the House a better position to negotiate this bill from than we have 
ever had in my tenure here, because we need that leverage. Frankly, the 
Senate has rolled us on this bill for many years. Not any more. We get 
fair treatment. We can go in there and negotiate our priorities and 
come away with a good product.
  So I am not going to say this bill is perfect, but I have to tell 
you, they have done a great job putting it together. We are going to 
end up with a great bill in the final analysis. Congratulations to all, 
and thanks to the staff.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Visclosky for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill really, I think Mr. Wamp said it is best, is 
one about efficiency and it is about how we spend our money when it 
comes to energy independence. There is no question that the people of 
this country understand it very well, that this bill is good for 
national security, it is good for the climate and it is good for jobs, 
because it promotes energy efficiency, it promotes renewable energy and 
alternative sources of energy, and it adds sufficient funding to the 
Department of Energy so that it can really boost its Office of Science 
and its Office of Energy Efficiency.
  I am fortunate to have in the Seventh Congressional District of 
Colorado the National Renewable Energy Lab, which is the finest 
laboratory of its kind in the world, to promote renewable energy and 
energy efficiency. This bill will help the Department of Energy 
continue to support the National Renewable Energy Lab as it works with 
the private sector to come up with new ways to power America and the 
rest of the globe.
  This is a fine bill. I thank the committee for developing this. I 
support it, and I ask wholehearted support from the Congress, because 
this, as I said, is good for national security, it is good for the 
climate, and it is good for jobs.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for a colloquy with the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
do want to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Visclosky.

[[Page H6674]]

  Today I rise to highlight the importance of research of advanced 
battery technology and our efforts to reduce our country's dependence 
on Mideast oil, also increase energy efficiency, cut emissions and 
strengthen the manufacturing sectors, all of which is all so vital to 
our economy. The U.S. automotive industry understands these goals and 
is currently working to meet them. I believe Congress should continue 
to assist The Big Three in reaching these goals.

                              {time}  1130

  There are many ideas that show promise of accomplishing these 
critical goals; but alternative and renewable fuels are an essential 
part of the equation and many promising technologies are being 
developed. Ethanol and biofuels are encouraging, but the technology and 
infrastructure simply are not there to make them viable solutions right 
away.
  Hybrid-electric technology has already shown its capability to 
dramatically increase fuel efficiency and has proven to be acceptable 
to the American car consumer. However, gas-electric hybrid vehicles do 
not represent the end of this avenue. If we invest valuable research 
and development dollars into leap-ahead technology such as advanced 
batteries, we can move past the tailpipe entirely with fully electric 
automobiles.
  The Japanese Government invests heavily in advanced battery research 
which benefits Toyota directly. The American auto companies asked 
President Bush and Congress for a modest investment of $500 million 
over the next 5 years for advanced battery technology research and 
development. This research, which would be conducted by USCAR, is 
critical to making the plug-in hybrids a reality.
  While I understand the limitations that you face with your 
allocation, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope we will be able to work 
together to increase funding for advanced battery research and the 
development that goes with it as this bill works its way to conference.
  I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I thank the 
gentleman for his concern about this important topic.
  I agree with him that advanced battery research and development is 
essential in our goals to increase energy efficiency and reduce 
emissions. That is why we have included an additional $10 million over 
the President's request in this bill for advanced battery R&D.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the chairman for his support and am greatly 
appreciative of his commitment to such an important endeavor. However, 
the U.S. automotive industry believes that a significant increase of 
Federal investment in the development of advanced batteries will not 
only improve fuel efficiency and reduce the emissions, but it will also 
help them compete with foreign automakers whose countries have already 
committed to provide significant funding for advanced battery R&D. The 
U.S. automakers believe that an additional $100 million this year for 
advanced battery R&D would considerably promote current efforts to 
develop the technology and become a leader in the production of 
advanced lithium ion batteries.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for his passionate support of 
the domestic automotive industry and appreciate the industry's effect 
on the national economy because I have a strong manufacturing presence 
in my district. Technology development is vital to the success of the 
manufacturing sector, and Congress should continue its support of R&D.
  I also thank the gentleman for his acknowledgment of our budget 
constraints. The subcommittee will be happy to work with him and the 
rest of our colleagues as we work our way through conference.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  (Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee 
for yielding me the time.
  I know that both the chairman and the ranking member share my great 
frustration that again this year the Department of Energy failed to 
request funding for the university reactor infrastructure and education 
assistance program. That is why I was extremely concerned to learn that 
this bill included no funding for this program.
  At the same time I recognize that the subcommittee has provided $15 
million in funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support 
university programs, but that spending will be limited to scholarships 
and fellowships and ``human infrastructure'' programs. And I understand 
that Assistant Secretary Spurgeon has indicated publicly that DOE plans 
to support universities, faculty and students with over $60 million in 
funding from its core research programs.
  I would ask this of the ranking member: Does the subcommittee expect 
the DOE to fulfill this commitment? And, furthermore, is the $15 
million in NRC funding in this bill in addition to DOE's commitment?
  I yield to Mr. Hobson.
  Mr. HOBSON. I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for 
her interest in this area. She is correct; the committee fully expects 
DOE to fulfill its commitment, recognizing the exact amount will change 
because the core research funding in this bill deviates from the 
President's request. And this DOE funding is in addition to the $15 
million the subcommittee is providing NRC to support university 
programs.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. To ensure that the DOE fulfills this commitment, would 
the ranking member be willing to request that DOE submit a detailed 
report on how much the DOE would spend on university nuclear programs 
within the funding levels provided in this bill?
  Mr. HOBSON. In reply, yes, we will make that request. And should the 
subcommittee find the DOE's response unacceptable or not receive a 
response by the deadline stipulated, I commit to working in conference 
to direct the DOE to support university nuclear programs using core 
research program funding.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman. I am also concerned that the 
bill does not provide sufficient funding for research reactor 
infrastructure support and upgrades. Would the ranking member be 
willing to work with me and other interested Members to ensure that the 
needs of our Nation's research reactor infrastructure are met in fiscal 
year 2008?
  Mr. HOBSON. I would be happy to work with my colleague on this issue. 
The subcommittee recognizes support for university-based research 
reactors is an important part of the Federal stewardship role for the 
U.S. nuclear science and engineering enterprise.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman.
  Finally on a separate and unrelated issue, I remain concerned that 
there is no funding in this bill for the Army Corps' dispersal barrier 
on the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal, which is designed to keep 
aquatic invasive species like the Asian carp from reaching the Great 
Lakes and devastating the ecosystem.
  I recognize the bill contains no funding for the barriers because the 
bill identifies no projects, and because additional authority included 
in WRDA is required for the Corps to complete and operate the barriers. 
If for some reason WRDA isn't enacted before conference begins on this 
bill, will the ranking member agree to help address the outstanding 
authorization issues and appropriate the necessary funds for these 
barriers in conference?
  Mr. HOBSON. I am committed to addressing any outstanding issues 
related to the barriers in conference, if necessary.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. And then, Mr. Chairman, do you share these concerns 
about both the barriers and DOE's university nuclear programs, and will 
you support the approach the ranking member and I are proposing to take 
to address these concerns?
  I yield to Mr. Visclosky.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I will assure the gentlewoman that I do, and I will.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
efforts in this area.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. How much time remains on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. Both sides have 6 minutes remaining in debate.

[[Page H6675]]

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, because of the flood mapping 
crisis in Houston, Texas, and the need for flood control, let me add my 
appreciation and submit my statement for the Record in support of this 
legislation.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak in strong support of H.R. 
2641, the ``Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2007.'' I also rise 
to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. Visclosky, the chairman of 
the Energy and Water Subcommittee and his ranking member, Mr. Hobson of 
Ohio, for working together in a constructive effort to renew America's 
dependence on foreign oil and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
  Moreover, this bill merits our support because it increases the 
Nation's commitment to long-term basic research by increasing the 
Federal investment that is so critical to developing the next 
generation of scientific breakthroughs. Federal funding for research 
and development has declined steadily over the last decade, and sound 
science has been compromised by political interference. This 
legislation takes a giant step toward reversing this disturbing trend.
  Mr. Chairman, in the 1970s, our Nation faced an energy crisis unlike 
any we had ever experienced before. The OPEC oil embargo of 1973 led to 
skyrocketing prices, long gas lines, gas sales only every other day, 
and shortages where gas was simply unavailable. We experienced another 
oil shock in the late 1970s and under the leadership of President Jimmy 
Carter, America responded with unprecedented initiatives for energy 
research. But over the years, gas prices came down, incentive was lost, 
and these efforts fell by the wayside.
  Today, we again face an energy crisis, only this time it is coupled 
with the enormous challenge of addressing the reality of global climate 
change. H.R. 2641 attempts to face these twin crises with over three 
billion dollars to address global climate change--researching its 
effects and working on technologies to slow it down--and investment in 
renewable energy programs that both reduce greenhouse gases and help 
our nation meet its energy needs.
  The bill cuts funding for poorly thought-out plans for nuclear 
weapons recognizing that because of the enormous cost and the 
importance to our national security they require smart strategies not 
blank checks. Instead it works to keep Americans safe with a 75 percent 
increase in funding for nuclear nonproliferation efforts. It also funds 
the Army Corps of Engineers, strengthening our Nation's navigation 
infrastructure and improving flood control programs.
  Before I highlight some of the more attractive provisions of this 
legislation, which by the way contains no earmarks, let me explain 
briefly why this energy and water legislation is so near and dear to 
the people I represent in the Eighteenth Congressional District of 
Texas.
  In the past 2 years, Houston, the center of my district, has 
experienced some of the most devastating acts of nature in its history.
  Six years ago this month, in June 2001, Tropical Storm Allison hit 
southeast Texas. Until Hurricane Katrina, this storm would become the 
costliest tropical storm in United States history. Flash flooding 
initiated quite rapidly during Houston's rush hour late Friday 
afternoon and on into the evening hours. Widespread street flooding was 
the initial threat, but the high rainfall amounts forced almost all the 
major Houston area bayou systems into severe flooding, with some to 
record levels. All major freeways in the Houston area were severely 
flooded in at least one location during this event. During this single 
event alone, rainfall in Harris County ranged from just 2 inches in the 
extreme west to in excess of 20 inches over Green's Bayou in the east. 
Countywide, the average rainfall was 8 inches with over two-thirds of 
the county receiving over 10 inches.
  The total damage across southeast Texas approached $5 billion, $4.88 
billion in Harris County alone. Twenty-two deaths were caused by 
Allison, with each of these fatalities occurring in Harris County. At 
this time, thunderstorms began to train and merge across the Houston 
metro area, and the system evolved into a powerful complex right over 
the most populated portion of our CWA that evening. This complex 
progressed south and east into the early morning hours of Saturday, 
June 9. Very heavy rainfall was observed for up to 10 hours in some 
locations, and rainfall rates of 4 inches or more per hour were 
observed throughout the night. A station in northeast Houston recorded 
over 26 inches of rain in almost 10 hours.
  In response, the Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project was 
launched. TSARP is a joint study effort by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, FEMA, and the Harris County Flood Control District, 
the District. The purpose of the TSARP project is to develop technical 
products that will assist the local community in recovery from the 
devastating flooding, and provide the community with a greater 
understanding of flooding and flood risks. The end product of the study 
is new flood insurance rate maps.
  TSARP mission statement is: to assist residents of Harris County in 
recovery from Tropical Storm Allison and minimize damages from future 
floods by investigating the flood event and by developing current, 
accurate, and timely flood hazard information.
  TSARP uses state-of-the-art technology. TSARP has yielded many 
products that will help us better understand our flood risk. These 
products will assist citizens in making important decisions, and will 
assist public agencies in infrastructure planning. The hoped for end 
result of TSARP is a more informed and disaster resistant community and 
one that is better prepared.
  Purchasing flood insurance before June 18 allowed people to 
``grandfather'' their existing floodplain status and pay lower premiums 
for flood insurance. Once the maps became official on June 18 residents 
and business owners whose properties are categorized in higher-risk 
flood zones on the new maps may pay higher rates.
  According to FEMA, a ``Regulatory Floodway'' means the channel of a 
river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must 
be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively 
increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. 
Communities must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that 
there are no increases in upstream flood elevations. For streams and 
other watercourses where FEMA has provided Base Flood Elevations, BFEs, 
but no floodway has been designated, the community must review 
floodplain development on a case-by-case basis to ensure that increases 
in water surface elevations do not occur, or identify the need to adopt 
a floodway if adequate information is available.

  FEMA regulations say ``Communities must regulate development in these 
floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood 
elevations.'' The city of Houston interprets that as no development 
within the floodway. This is not necessarily correct. Construction can 
take place but it cannot obstruct the water. Elevating the structure 
gets the same effect but the city denies this as they said debris may 
collect under the structure. They will only allow a remodeling permit 
if the improvements do not exceed 50 percent of the structures value.
  There is one neighborhood along White Oak Bayou that is greatly 
affected. The homes are of higher value than most of the district. 
Alternatives to resolve their issue include widening the bayou or 
diverting floodwater.
  The Harris County Flood District is now investigating these 
alternatives. Otherwise the only solution would be a change in the 
city's ordinance allowing construction in the floodway.
  I am looking forward to working with colleagues on the Energy and 
Water Appropriations Subcommittee to explore ways and means of 
resolving this problem so that Houstonians will not be forced out of 
their homes and unable to afford flood insurance.
  Mr. Chairman, let me provide this partial listing of some of the many 
good provisions in this legislation. First, H.R. 2641 will improve U.S. 
waterways and flood protection by increasing funding for the Army Corps 
of Engineers by $713.4 million above the President's request to address 
a $1 billion backlog of operations and needed maintenance. This backlog 
needs to be addressed to sustain the coastal and inland navigation 
infrastructure critical to the U.S. economy, and the gaps in flood 
protection highlighted in Hurricane Katrina.
  Second, the legislation will help reduce dependence on foreign oil 
and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy and energy 
efficiency programs are funded at $1.9 billion--a 50 percent increase 
in energy efficiency and renewable energy above the President's request 
for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. This is in 
addition to the additional $300 million added in the FY 2007 joint 
resolution. In contrast, the President's FY 2008 request for renewable 
energy and energy efficiency research is the same as it was in 2001 in 
real terms.
  Funding for research and development of alternative fuels such as 
corn based and cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel is increased by 40 
percent above the President's request. Solar Energy demonstration 
projects receive a 34 percent increase above the President's request. 
There is also $22 million to research new ways of generating power from 
water flow, and $44.3 million for geothermal energy,

[[Page H6676]]

neither of which were funded in the President's request. This is on top 
of the $95 million for upgrades to existing hydropower dams funded 
under the Army Corps.
  I could go on and on. This thoughtful legislation provides funding to 
invest in new vehicle technology; energy efficient buildings; 
weatherization; carbon capture and sequestration; and climate change 
science. And it cuts wasteful spending as well.
  For example, H.R. 2641 directs the Energy Department to develop a 
concrete plan to improve its contract management. The Energy Department 
has been on the GAO list of programs that are at high-risk for waste, 
fraud, abuse and mismanagement for 17 years in a row.
  The bill also cuts Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, funding 
by $285 million below the President's request and $47.5 million below 
2007 for this initiative to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and burn long-
lived radioactive materials. There are concerns that this project is 
unsafe, will cost tens of billions of dollars, and could make it far 
easier for terrorists to obtain plutonium to make nuclear weapons.
  The bill also secures substantial savings by cutting wasteful and 
unnecessary nuclear weapons programs by $5.9 billion, $632 million 
below the President's request and $396 million below 2007. It cuts 37 
specific weapons program accounts, including the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead program. The existing stockpile will continue to provide the 
Nation's nuclear deterrent for the next two decades, and certainly 
until the President develops a strategic nuclear weapons plan to 
transform the nuclear weapons complex away from its expensive cold war 
configuration to a more affordable, sustainable structure.
   Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2641 and urge my colleagues to 
join me. I thank Chairman Visclosky for his fine work in bringing this 
exceptional legislation to the House floor where it should receive an 
overwhelmingly favorable vote.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), a member of the subcommittee, for 3 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  First of all, I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member 
and all of the staff on both sides of the aisle for this excellent 
bill. I hope that all of the Members on both sides will find it is 
something that they can support. Particularly I want to commend the 
chairman, this chairman and his ranking member, for the very amicable 
and nonpartisan way that they have conducted the work of the 
subcommittee. I think that is a wonderful picture for all of us as 
chairs and ranking members for the way that they have done this.
  A great deal has been said about energy independence for this 
country, and I would say, I would assert that it is truly a matter of 
national security that we maximize the efficiency and conservation of 
energy in this country. We use 100 quads of energy; 100 quads is 100 
quadrillion Btus of energy in this country for 5 percent of the world's 
population. The world as a whole uses about 400 quads of energy. So we, 
for 5 percent of the population, are using 25 percent of the whole 
world's energy usage.
  Early in our hearings process this year we had a series of theme 
hearings, and we had many expert witnesses. The most dramatic testimony 
that I heard there that is easily conveyable is that we could save of 
our energy usage some 50 percent; all across all of our uses of energy, 
50 percent of what we presently use. That same testimony indicated that 
since 1973 when the first oil crisis hit, we had saved already some 47 
quads of energy in that roughly 40 years since the first energy crisis, 
a little less than 40 years. So we could save a huge amount more.
  I just want to make three points about this very good bill. The bill 
recognizes that energy efficiency is one of the Nation's largest 
underutilized energy sources. It provides $146 million more for 
building technologies which is an increase of $60 million above the 
President's request; this, in an area where 40 percent of all of the 
energy we use is related to our buildings, our industrial, our 
commercial and our residential buildings. So there alone we can save a 
huge amount of energy, and the bill recognizes that and puts money 
where it will do the most good to try to improve our energy efficiency 
in our buildings.
  But it also provides $23 million to address the backlog of equipment 
standards and analysis, $10 million above the President's request, 
which goes to accelerate the approval and the updating of appliance and 
equipment efficiency standards which we know that the Department of 
Energy is very much behind on. They are behind on at least 20 different 
standards related to appliance and equipment that we could be saving a 
lot more energy if those standards were brought up to date. And the 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories estimates that the 
administration's negligence will cost an estimated $28 billion in 
foregone savings.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the 
attention of the House something that is being done in this bill that I 
think has received insufficient discussion and debate.
  This Energy and Water appropriations bill includes in it the most 
radical shift in U.S. policy on nuclear weapons that I have seen at 
least since the mid-1990s, that will lead us either to be forced to 
return to nuclear testing or to abandon nuclear deterrence because we 
stop maintaining the stockpile.
  Without any debate, we have made this drastic change in this bill 
that is devastating to American nuclear weapons capabilities and will 
significantly change our policy on nuclear weapons without any 
discussion at all of any substance.
  In 1992, the United States stopped nuclear testing. In 1996 we joined 
the moratorium on nuclear testing and said we will continue to maintain 
the stockpile through something called science-based stockpile 
stewardship. It is kind of like if you had a car that was a 1980s car 
and you said okay, we are never going to turn the key, but every year 
through science and engineering we are going to be able to tell the 
President, if we turned the key we believe it would be safe, secure and 
reliable.
  The car would go on. It won't be turned on unless we turn the key; 
and, Mr. President, we are confident of that.

                              {time}  1145

  This bill devastates that capability with respect to our nuclear 
weapons. It has a 20-percent reduction in 1 year in the engineering 
laboratory that is solely responsible for over 6,000 parts in our 
nuclear weapons. It has a 40-percent reduction at Los Alamos National 
Lab's nuclear weapons program. And 80 percent of the existing stockpile 
is designed by Los Alamos. They are responsible for being able to tell 
us if these weapons are safe, secure and reliable.
  What does this mean? It means we will not be able to achieve the 
stockpile reductions we're trying to achieve because the labs will not 
have the sense of reliability of the stockpile. Your percentage of 
reliability determines how low you can bring the stockpile.
  Second, we are increasing the likelihood of the need to go back to 
underground testing, because at some point in the future, the lab 
directors will not be able to certify the reliability of the stockpile. 
There will be a problem, as there is every year; and they won't have 
the tools to be able to assess that problem without nuclear testing.
  And, third, you are undermining allied confidence in the American 
nuclear umbrella. Mr. Obey, my colleague, said they're devastating this 
program because there's been no strategy for post-Cold War nuclear 
weapons. That is a complete fallacy. It is rubbish. We signed the 
Moscow treaty to reduce the size of our deployed stockpile. We have 
gone to a policy of no underground testing. We have gone to a policy of 
science-based stockpile stewardship and the majority in this House is 
moving toward a nuclear freeze and unilateral disarmament without any 
debate whatsoever.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would recognize the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairman Visclosky and 
Ranking Member Hobson for their clear vision and their courage in 
producing this bill. This bill represents an historic shift in policy, 
and that is why this bill deserves such strong support.

[[Page H6677]]

  This bill almost doubles the funding for real nuclear 
nonproliferation programs, both in the former Soviet Union and around 
the world, adding close to $1 billion for the most effective programs. 
The bill provides dramatic increases over the President's request for 
the program, and I commend Mr. Visclosky and Mr. Hobson for their 
crucial, long overdue investment in the security of the United States. 
We are here only because of their leadership.
  Secondly, while the President wants to build thousands of new 
warheads at a price tag of up to $100 billion, this bill puts a brake 
on the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and it demands an 
explanation of why the United States needs to build thousands of new 
nuclear weapons even as we are, with agreements with the Russians, 
trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in this world.
  I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for 
dramatically realigning our nuclear priorities in such a positive 
manner. I urge adoption of this historic measure.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
  There will be a vote on the Hinchey amendment later on today. It 
doesn't repeal section 1221, but it slows it down. There was never a 
hearing on this. There was never a vote on this in the Congress. This 
whole power line issue in corridors, which in this area will go through 
Antietam, will include Gettysburg and First Manassas, will be coming to 
your area.
  So when given the opportunity if you look at all the groups that 
support the Hinchey amendment, we strongly urge you to support the 
Hinchey amendment. On the current language, no environmental impact 
statement, no consideration of energy efficiency, no consideration of 
historic lands.
  The Hinchey amendment is good for the country.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, might I ask the time left on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Indiana has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I assume the majority has the right to close general 
debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. I have 2 minutes left. I yield it to a member of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Once again this year, the bill before us is the result of a 
bipartisan atmosphere in the Energy and Water Subcommittee that has 
been fostered by Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson. I want 
to thank both of them for the manner in which they approached the many 
issues before this committee and for producing a bill that will pass 
today, I believe, with little opposition.
  First, the Energy and Water bill enjoyed unanimous support in the 
subcommittee and near unanimous support in the full committee for the 
balanced and thoughtful way in which it addresses the complex energy 
and water challenges facing this Nation.
  Second, the bill makes tremendous investments in our Nation's 
critical science and energy-related programs. Third, the bill promotes 
two areas that I believe are critical to address the energy supply 
challenges we face, nuclear and alternative fuels, by employing the 
vast knowledge and expertise of our national labs that includes the 
Idaho National Laboratory which is in my district.
  Finally, the bill continues its pressure on DOE to improve project 
management, contain costs and stick to schedules which are among DOE's 
most chronic and persistent problems.
  In closing, I want to again recognize the bipartisan manner in which 
this bill was written and acknowledge the tremendous work of all the 
professional staff on this subcommittee.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I thank the chairman 
and the ranking member for their work on this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 45 seconds remaining. The 
gentleman from Indiana has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I only have one more speaker and I would 
close with that speaker, Mr. Spratt from South Carolina, if there are 
no further speakers on Mr. Hobson's side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio have additional speakers?
  Mr. HOBSON. No, but I will yield my extra 45 seconds to the gentleman 
from South Carolina.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for the 
balance of the time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Let me thank both the chairman and the ranking member for 
this gracious yielding of time but, in addition, for the excellent work 
they have done on this bill. As they know, there is a bone of 
contention in the bill where we have had a disagreement. It is called 
MOX fuel. I think it's a good idea. For some time we've had an 
understanding with the Russians that they and we would build MOX fuel 
disposition plants so that we could take weapons grade plutonium and 
convert it into reactor fuel, burn it and dispose of it so it would no 
longer be usable for weapons. This bill took the President's request of 
$333 million and basically cut it in half to 167. But when I sat down 
with the chairman, he pointed out to me that there were prior-year 
balances that would augment that amount of money and, all in all, there 
was a total of $698 million available which would be enough to move the 
project forward in the next fiscal year. Unfortunately, when we 
explored those unspent balances, we found that the numbers were a bit 
out of date, according to the Department of Energy, and that the 
available funds would add up to only about $326 million, which is about 
half of what is needed for the project next year.
  So I rise simply to say that in conference or somewhere along the way 
before this finally becomes law, we would like to reengage about the 
amount of money that is available for the MOX plant. I'm not offering 
an amendment today. I know it would be defeated. It would also be 
ingratitude for the work that the chairman and the ranking member have 
already committed to work with us on this project.
  But I do say, number one, I appreciate your efforts and, number two, 
we'll visit this number in conference with the conferees if at all 
possible.
  There are some other issues here, the H Canyon, there's $85 million 
taken out of it. It's the only plutonium processing line of its kind we 
have operative in the country today. That money may render it difficult 
to operate it through the rest of the year. And there is also a 
question of where the pit disassembly process will be located. I 
understand that has been resolved and will be resolved with an 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for their assistance 
in this matter and say that we still have some work to do on the 
adequate amount of money for the MOX fuel plant before the bill is 
ready.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, later today we begin work on important 
legislation to finally help America end its dependence on foreign oil 
and pursue newer, cleaner forms of energy.
  I'm excited that the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that we 
will pass this week will take the long-overdue step of setting a new 
course for our energy future by making significant investments in 
renewab1es and efficiency.
  For too many years, working families have felt the sting of high 
prices at the gas pump and rising home energy costs. Our economy has 
been made vulnerable to the whims of OPEC, and our reliance on fossil 
fuels has polluted our air and exacerbated climate change.
  All the while state and local governments have been forced to try to 
fill the leadership vacuum left by the previous Congress and this 
President.
  No more. The new Congress is prepared to meet our nation's energy 
challenges head on. To do so, this bill provides almost $2 billion for 
renewables and efficiency, significantly more than the President 
requested.
  This funding includes $200 million to get more solar projects on the 
market, $250 million to help develop domestically produced biofuels and 
over $235 million for new vehicle technologies to alleviate our demand 
for foreign oil, about $390 million for efficiency and weatherization 
grants to cut energy use in buildings, and over $110 million to expand 
and develop hydropower across the United States.

[[Page H6678]]

  This funding is an investment in America's future prosperity. By 
supporting these technologies, we will be able to produce energy 
sources here at home that do not rely on fossil fuels and do not emit 
greenhouse gases, particulate matter, and other pollutants that 
threaten our environment and health.
  However, if there is one area where I feel the bill strays off course 
it is in its continued financial support for nuclear power. I am deeply 
concerned that the bill continues to provide unwarranted taxpayer 
subsidies for nuclear power that hide the true consumer costs of this 
power source and obscure the safety and environmental threats posed by 
nuclear energy. I am specifically troubled by the provision of $120 
million for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and almost $200 
million for new reactor construction and technology development through 
the Nuclear Power 2010 and Generation IV programs. I believe that we 
need to curtail these subsidies to make the nuclear industry stand on 
its own and to make its true costs transparent to the public.
  Although I have reservations about the spending on nuclear power in 
the bill, I am pleased that it does not include funding for the 
Reliable Replacement Warhead, and requires the President to come 
forward with a plan to adapt to the realities of a post-Cold War world 
by transforming and reducing our nuclear arsenal.
  Overall, the Energy appropriations bill contains significant 
investments for solar, wind, hydropower, biofuels, efficiency, and 
other technologies that will help America's families gain cleaner, more 
secure, more affordable energy. This bill is a significant 
accomplishment and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2641, the 
Energy and Water Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. I commend 
Chairman Visclosky for his efforts on this measure and for investing in 
the needs of our Nation's future.
  As a former member of the House Armed Services Committee and as chair 
of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, 
Cybersecurity and Science and Technology, I am particularly pleased 
that this bill recognizes the importance of nuclear non-proliferation 
efforts. I have become convinced that the nuclear terrorist threat is 
real, requiring the full and urgent attention of our government. We 
have learned about the relative ease with which a terrorist can build a 
crude nuclear device, and we need to do all we can to prevent the 
nightmare scenario in which someone smuggles a device onto U.S. soil 
and detonates it in a city.
  We must pursue a three-pronged approach of prevention, detection, and 
response. I have supported efforts to increase our radiation detection 
capabilities at our ports of entry, as well as to improve our 
government response efforts if our nation is ever attacked with a 
nuclear or radiological device.
  This bill addresses the third component of that strategy--securing 
nuclear material at its source. This measure increases funds for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration to secure nuclear weapons and 
materials in the former Soviet Republic. The NNSA's efforts are vital 
to improving the security of nuclear materials at civilian, naval, and 
nuclear weapons complex facilities, and helping Russia dispose of 
plutonium removed from nuclear weapons.
  However, the challenge of fissile material security goes far beyond 
Russia and the former Soviet Union and will require our government to 
expand its non-proliferation programs outside of the former Soviet 
Union. The revelations of A.Q. Khan's black market proliferation 
network, for example, provided a striking wake-up call that we must 
focus on other nuclear states if we are going to be successful in 
deterring nuclear terrorism. Consequently, the bill more than doubles 
funding--providing $251 million--for the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative, which aims to identify, secure, remove, and facilitate the 
disposition of high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials 
and equipment around the world.
  Again, I thank Chairman Visclosky for his leadership on nuclear non-
proliferation programs and for his fine work in crafting this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he or 
she has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2641

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for energy and water 
     development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, namely:

  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member 
Hobson for a very strong bill that reflects wonderful bipartisan 
consensus. I especially want to thank them as a new member of this 
subcommittee for allowing all of the members to have more input into 
this bill than I thought was possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a new member of this subcommittee, and I joined 
this subcommittee to fight for sensible and critical investments in 
renewable energy and energy efficiency. Before joining this 
subcommittee, I served for 4 years on the House Armed Services 
Committee and came to the conclusion that every military challenge that 
we confront as a Nation is exacerbated by one fact and, that is, that 
we have to rely on our adversaries to sell us the fuel to power our 
military to protect us from our adversaries.
  Now, this has been a 30-year problem. Thirty years ago, President 
Carter addressed the Nation, declared the moral equivalent of war on 
foreign oil, and the only thing we've been able to do in the past 30 
years since then is to double the amount of our oil imports from the 
Middle East and cut renewable energy investments by 80 percent. We've 
had 30 years of missteps, backsteps, and half steps.
  This bill is the most important step forward in correcting that 
course that we have seen in 30 years. It puts us back on course. It 
increases investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy by $638 
million over the administration request. It inserts language that I 
requested to create a new Federal advisory council on investment and 
finance so that we can unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of the 
investment community in helping us to solve this problem. It invests an 
additional $70 million in biomass and biorefinery. It invests an 
additional $51.6 million in solar. Mr. Chairman, we are now behind 
Germany and Japan in solar. This will help us leap ahead. It invests an 
additional $17 million in wind. Mr. Chairman, of the top 10 wind 
manufacturers in the world, only one is American. This will push us 
ahead.
  It invests an additional $59.7 million in vehicle technologies. Mr. 
Chairman, we are now falling behind Japan in the development and 
manufacturing of an advanced battery capable of deploying plug-in 
hybrids. This will give us an important boost. It provides $60 million 
in new investments in green buildings. We are now falling behind China 
in the development of green-building technologies. This will put us 
ahead. It invests an additional $101 million in weatherization, a 
critically important program for energy efficiency.
  This solves a fundamental military problem that we have confronted 
and that problem is this: we are now borrowing money from China to fund 
our military, to buy oil from the Persian Gulf, to fuel our Air Force 
to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf. This is not just an 
environmental or an energy problem. This is a fundamental national 
security problem. This bill puts us where we need to be, not only 
protecting ourselves from our adversaries, not only strengthening our 
military capabilities which need strengthening but creating the next 
generation of green jobs, creating a new generation of manufacturing 
jobs that will put us ahead of our economic competitors in these new 
and critically growing technologies.
  So I want to again thank Mr. Visclosky and Mr. Hobson for their 
bipartisan leadership, thank them for involving all of their members in 
this debate, and urge my colleagues to support this bill which is one 
of the most important investments that we can make and will change that 
30-year record of half steps, missteps and backsteps into a giant leap 
forward for humankind.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I ask Chairman Visclosky to enter into a colloquy with myself and 
Congressman Costello.
  As Chairman Visclosky is aware, our home State of Illinois has two 
sites

[[Page H6679]]

currently being reviewed by the Department of Energy and the FutureGen 
Alliance as potential locations for the final selection of the 
FutureGen project.
  FutureGen is President Bush's initiative to design, build and operate 
the first near-zero emissions coal-fueled power plant. It is recognized 
worldwide as one of the most significant projects in the world to 
address climate change concerns.
  We appreciate Chairman Visclosky's support of the FutureGen project 
by fully funding it in this year's Energy and Water appropriations 
bill. However, Congressman Costello and I have two points of 
clarification with the report language as currently written, and we 
appreciate your willingness to address these two points.
  I yield to my colleague and friend, Congressman Costello.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus) for yielding, and I also thank Chairman Visclosky for his 
support of the FutureGen project.
  FutureGen is on a fast track to break ground by 2009 and be on line 
by 2012. I would ask the chairman of the committee if he can assure us 
that it is the intent of the committee not to delay the FutureGen 
project.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, to both Mr. Shimkus, as well as my 
friend Mr. Costello, I can assure the gentlemen from Illinois that it 
is the intention of the committee not to delay FutureGen.
  And I would add parenthetically that the changes made by the 
committee are to ensure that this project does proceed.
  Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the chairman for his response, and I seek 
clarification from the chairman as to the committee's intentions with 
regard to the nature of FutureGen as a research and demonstration 
project. FutureGen is focused as an integrated gasification combined-
cycle plant with carbon capture and sequestration. Is it the intention 
of the committee to alter the nature of the project?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. It is the committee's intention not to change or alter 
the focus of the project as described by the gentleman. The committee 
is concerned with the ability of the Department of Energy to complete 
construction projects of all kinds on time and within budget, and 
that's why the actions were taken.
  Mr. COSTELLO. I thank Chairman Visclosky for this colloquy, for his 
response, and for his support for FutureGen.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend. We look forward to 
working with Chairman Visclosky as the appropriations process moves 
forward to ensure we continue to use coal, which provides half of our 
Nation's electricity, in an efficient and environmentally friendly way.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. For both yourself and Mr. Costello, as I tell people, 
I grew up in Gary, Indiana, with about four integrated steel 
facilities. I'm a carbon guy. We have a significant issue as far as the 
use of carbon in this country, and one of the ways to solve it is to 
proceed with FutureGen. So I do look forward to working with both of 
you as we proceed.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank the chairman. He's been very gracious in walking 
us through this process.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to engage in a colloquy with Chairman 
Visclosky and my colleague Rush Holt. I'd like to thank the chairman 
for including $22 million in funding for hydropower energy at the 
Department of Energy.
  As the chairman well knows, U.S. wave and current energy resource 
potential that could be credibly harnessed is about 400 TerraWatt hours 
per year. That's about 10 percent of our total national energy demand. 
Just like the wind, coal, gas, oil, geothermal, conventional 
hydropower, and nuclear power industries have been nurtured through 
Federal research and development and other industry incentives, this 
new renewable energy source needs support from our government to get 
started.
  The U.S. stands poised to take advantage of many of the technological 
opportunities available to ocean, wave and tidal power. While the 
Europeans profited in the early years of wind energy development, we're 
poised to lead the world in marine renewable energy technology 
development.
  Early successes will lead to continued investment. Success begets 
success. The investor community is carefully watching and waiting to 
see what the government is going to do to help this industry, just like 
the research and development funding and tax subsidies we provided to 
all of the other renewable energy industries.
  With that, I'd like to yield to my colleague Mr. Holt, who's been a 
leader on energy issues.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend Mr. Inslee from the State 
of Washington, and I would add that we believe that the Department of 
Energy should consider both conventional hydropower energy provided 
through dams, as well as hydropower through the movement of waves, 
tides, and currents in the oceans and free flowing rivers, lakes and 
streams. Each of these forms of hydropower holds the potential to 
improve greatly the way we generate energy.
  We're pleased that the Appropriations Committee has recommended that 
the Department of Energy use some of this funding for nonimpounded 
marine renewable technologies, and we think it's important for the 
subcommittee to continue to provide oversight of the Department of 
Energy in support of this form of sustainable energy research.
  Will the chairman and the committee continue to investigate the 
potential of this energy source by working with and providing oversight 
of the Department of Energy and look for increased opportunities for 
funding in the future?
  I yield back to my colleague from Washington to obtain a response 
from the chairman.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I can assure the gentlemen from both Washington and 
New Jersey that the committee is aware of this sustainable energy 
source and will continue to work with and provide oversight of the 
Department of Energy to ensure that renewable marine and hydroenergy 
development, both from the oceans, waves, tides and streams, as well as 
for energy from hydroelectric dams is a priority of the agency. It is 
the committees's intention to fund these new technologies for $6 
million for research, development, and demonstration for new waterpower 
technologies.
  Part of our approach to the energy crisis is the support of a broad 
range of energy and conservation technologies so that we have the best 
chance of meeting the challenge before us. A diverse energy supply for 
portfolio is key to providing reliable electricity for all of America's 
homes and businesses.
  And I deeply appreciate the gentleman raising this important issue.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. We look forward to working with 
you. We think the tide is coming in on marine renewables. Thank you 
very much.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY


                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       The following appropriations shall be expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of 
     the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the 
     Department of the Army pertaining to rivers and harbors, 
     flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, and related purposes.


                             Investigations

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For expenses necessary for the collection and study of 
     basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood and 
     storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and 
     related projects; restudy of authorized projects, 
     miscellaneous investigations; and, when authorized by law, 
     surveys and detailed studies, and plans and specifications, 
     of proposed projects, $120,100,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the funds provided under this 
     heading of Public Law 106-554, $100,000 are rescinded.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Westmoreland:
       Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $30,000,000)''.

[[Page H6680]]

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I almost feel like rather than 
offering an amendment that I need to ask everybody to stand up and 
we'll hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but I guess it's easy and people are 
in a good mood and very agreeable when you're talking about spending 
other people's money.
  And in this case, we're talking about spending taxpayers' hard-earned 
dollars where we have very little control over how hard it is for them 
to make their money, but we spend it pretty easily.
  This amendment takes $30 million out of the Corps of Engineers' 
investigation budget. It brings it down to the spending level that the 
President has requested in his budget request.
  The Energy and Water appropriations bill is $1.1 billion over the 
President's request, and this amendment would reduce the funding for 
the investigation account under the Corps of Engineers by the $30 
million, bringing it back down to the President's original request.
  The investigations and construction funding is used to collect and 
study the basic information pertaining to local water projects such as 
flood and storm damage reduction. The funding is also used to restudy 
projects already authorized by Congress which can lead to additional 
Federal spending on local projects that have already received Federal 
funds.
  Let me say that on some of these projects that we've heard about 
today from the delays, and Ranking Member Hobson mentioned the MOX 
project which has been delayed for a number of years, probably that's 
not only due to funding but in these additional restudies that the 
Corps of Engineers has had to do on the project. The Corps of Engineers 
has greatly expanded over the last decade.
  In addition, according to the administration, the Corps already has a 
large backlog of ongoing construction work, and the President's budget 
limits funding for the study and design of additional projects. So, in 
other words, by limiting new Corps investigations, this amendment would 
ensure that the current Corps projects move forward at a pace to bring 
them to completion without further delays.
  So far there has been at least a $105.5 billion in new Federal 
spending over the next 5 years that has been authorized by this new 
leadership, the democratically controlled Congress this year, in 
enacting the largest tax increase in American history, the Democrat 
budget allows for $23 billion in spending over the President's budget's 
request.
  This amendment is designed to save the taxpayers $30 million, only a 
small amount, just a small dent, in the unnecessary increase in Federal 
spending this year, and this again is fueled by the largest tax 
increase in the history of this country.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I ask that all Members support this amendment. It 
is a small dent in the large increase in Federal spending.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Georgia?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would rise in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman move to strike the last word?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Then I would move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a parliamentary inquiry, 
please.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman would state his inquiry.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. It would be my understanding that on this particular 
amendment, because I have moved to strike the last word per the Chair's 
suggestion, that I can only speak once on the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's correct.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. As opposed to rising in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Either way, the gentleman may speak but once on this 
amendment. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Mr. Westmoreland.
  First of all, he did indicate that he was concerned about 
reinvestigations. I would simply indicate to my colleagues that the 
world changes every day, and there are times when we need to reassess 
the circumstances so that we can spend the taxpayers' dollars as wisely 
as possible.
  The fact is that the Nation's investment in our water resources 
infrastructure has declined over the last three decades, from $6 
billion per year to less than $4 billion in constant dollars.
  If the tragedy in New Orleans has taught us anything, I hope it is 
that we have neglected our infrastructure. If the suffering of the 
residents in the gulf doesn't illustrate the point, simple fiscal 
prudence should. The cost of recovery in New Orleans will far exceed 
what it would have cost to provide additional flood and storm 
protection.
  There are large cities that face high and increasing risk of 
catastrophic flooding. Sacramento is just one example.
  We have high-hazard dams with safety issues. There are countless 
communities that do not have flood protection commensurate with the 
risk to those communities.
  Much of our infrastructure is reaching its design life. Over 50 
percent of the locks and dams owned by the Corps of Engineers are in 
this category. Aging infrastructure brings increasing costs, yet the 
funding for accounts at the Army Corps for this particular function 
have been flat over the last 30 years.
  Circumstances have changed from the time much of our infrastructure 
has been designed, development patterns have changed, transportation 
networks and requirements have evolved. Yet we are not investing enough 
today to maintain what we already own or complete projects that are in 
progress today, much less plan for the future needs for the safety of 
our citizens and economic viability of our transportation system.
  Due to insufficient funding, schedules are slipping and costs are 
growing, as we piecemeal these projects, if we do not act in a timely 
fashion.
  There is a significant and growing backlog of civil works projects. 
Current estimates are as high as $60 billion. Funding for studies and 
investigations must be adequately funded so that we can proceed with 
these very important projects. And given the backlog in construction 
projects, the funding for investigations account is less than the 
current year.
  The bill focuses funding on completing ongoing projects and 
maintaining existing infrastructure. However, it is very important, 
obviously, to plan for the future.
  I would ask that my colleagues oppose the amendment.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment on the chairman's comment 
about rules change every day. They do change every day, but when 
someone has based a project on the prior rules and regulations of the 
Corps, and they have based their whole project, and proceeded with that 
project, when the rules change and they come back to reinvestigate, 
that's no way to do business.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I was happy to yield to the gentleman, and I want to 
thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage the House to adopt this amendment.
  Right now on the heels of our Democrat colleagues enacting the single 
largest increase in history, we should leave no stone unturned in 
trying to find more ways that we can help the poor beleaguered 
taxpayer, who actually pays for all of these programs.
  Now, I have no doubt that there are many good things in this 
legislation, and I know we in Congress are only limited by our 
imagination on how we can spend the taxpayers' money.
  Already, just with the programs that are already on the books with 
the Federal Government before people create new programs, we're on a 
collision course. We're on a collision course to either, one, have 
taxes doubled on the next generation, just to pay for government we 
have, or within one generation there is only going to be, for all 
intents and purposes, a Federal Government consisting of Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security.
  Now, many people don't understand how the institution works, but 
already

[[Page H6681]]

so much of the Federal spending is on automatic pilot, so-called 
entitlement spending. This is actually one of the few opportunities 
that Members have to come to the floor of the House and actually try to 
save taxpayers' money.
  Now, we know that the President has issued a veto threat, and there 
is a $23 billion savings that he's trying to achieve.
  For many of us, we believe the President is trying to spend too much 
money. But the President is the President, and the President is the one 
who has the veto pen.
  If we would adopt the gentleman's amendment, the gentleman from 
Georgia, we would at least take one small step towards the pathway of 
saving that $23 billion and maybe, maybe take one small step towards 
saving the next generation from that nasty fiscal fork in the road to 
where either, one, they are going to have their taxes doubled, right on 
the heels, again, of the single largest tax increase in American 
history that the Democrats have brought to us, or we are going to see a 
Federal Government consisting of little more than Medicare, Medicaid, 
and Social Security.
  What's ironic about this, Mr. Chairman, is if we don't start taking 
steps to save money today, and this amendment would save $30 million, 
if we don't start taking these steps today, tomorrow there might not be 
an Energy and Water appropriations bill. All the money would go 
somewhere else, and we continue as an institution to kick the can down 
the road.
  Now, some in this body say fiscal responsibility simply means 
balancing the budget no matter what the cost. Well, for those who are 
going to have to have their taxes doubled in the next generation, they 
may differ with that assessment of what fiscal responsibility is.
  Again, as the gentleman from Georgia has said, the Corps already has 
a large background of ongoing construction work. We know that; all 
Members know that. By limiting the Corps investigations, this amendment 
would help ensure that current Corps projects are completed.
  Again, it's one very, very small step; but we cannot send this 
country again under Democrat leadership into some kind of tax-and-spend 
economic death spiral. We have to take every step possible to save the 
American people from, number one, the single largest tax increase in 
American history that threatens to impose over a 5-year period up to 
$3,000 of taxes per family. We have to save them from that. Then we 
have to save them from the other spending.
  So this is a very modest amendment that would put us on a pathway to 
ensure that the President doesn't veto this bill and that we achieve 
some level of fiscal responsibility.
  I urge the House to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                              Construction

                    (including rescissions of funds)

       For expenses necessary for the construction of river and 
     harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, and related projects authorized by law, 
     including a portion of the expenses for the modifications 
     authorized by section 104 of the Everglades National Park 
     Protection and Expansion Act of 1989; for conducting detailed 
     studies, and plans and specifications, of such projects 
     authorized or made eligible for selection by law (but such 
     detailed studies, and plans and specifications, shall not 
     constitute a Federal commitment to construction); 
     $2,008,874,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such sums as are necessary to cover one-half of the costs of 
     construction, replacement, and expansion of inland waterways 
     projects shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust 
     Fund; and of which $8,000,000 shall be exclusively for 
     projects and activities authorized under section 107 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1960; and of which $45,000,000 shall 
     be exclusively available for projects and activities 
     authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1948; and of which $10,000,000 shall be exclusively for 
     projects and activities authorized under section 14 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1946; and of which $25,000,000 shall be 
     exclusively for projects and activities authorized under 
     section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986; 
     and of which $25,000,000 shall be exclusively for projects 
     and activities authorized under section 206 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996: Provided, That of the 
     funds provided under this heading the following amounts are 
     rescinded: from Public Law 101-101, $435,000; from Public Law 
     102-377, $1,740,000; from Public Law 103-126, $797,000; from 
     Public Law 105-245, $1,716,000.

  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise for the purpose of engaging in a brief colloquy with the 
subcommittee chairman and the ranking member regarding the Corps' 
regulatory program.
  As you are aware, shore protection is a concern not only to residents 
along the coast but to all residents, all Americans who come to our 
beaches to relax, fish, boat, and dive. But our coasts are facing a 
real crisis. They have become seriously eroded, endangering both the 
personal property and personal safety of countless residents.
  This is not a crisis limited to my constituents in south Florida. In 
my conversations with other Members representing coastal communities, I 
know that shore protection is a major issue facing our great country.
  Mr. Chairman, among its many duties, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
is entrusted to regulate the permitting of projects affecting U.S. 
waters. Comprised of many honorable and hardworking civil servants and 
military officers, the Army Corps has a long history of dedicated 
service towards the preservation of our natural resources.
  I reluctantly rise today to voice my grave concern that the 
regulatory process under the Army Corps is simply taking too long. 
Critical erosion control projects that local communities wish to 
undertake to protect their people from the very real dangers posed by 
hurricanes or other deadly storms are languishing under the inertia of 
bureaucracy.
  Mr. Chairman, the residents of Singer Island in Palm Beach County 
where I reside cannot wait 2 years for the Army Corps to complete their 
environmental impact statement. That means two more hurricane seasons 
and two more chances to have their lives literally washed away.
  Singer Island isn't alone. Up and down the coast, local communities 
are in the same dire situation waiting for the Army Corps to act upon 
the regulatory authority. I know that you have heard the identical 
concerns during the many lengthy hearings that the committee has held. 
I understand that the chairman is willing to work with me to bring 
transparency and efficiency to the Army Corps regulatory process when 
you go to conference.
  I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue, Mr. Chairman, 
and I look forward to our working together.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman for 
bringing this to the attention of the committee. He is correct, it has 
been a subject of our hearing process as well. For some time now the 
committee has been concerned that the Corps' regulatory process is not 
being undertaken in an expeditious manner.
  I want to assure the gentleman and all of my colleagues that we on 
the subcommittee have every intention of helping him bring greater 
transparency and efficiency to the Army Corps' regulatory process, both 
in terms of your particular concerns, as well as those nationwide.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I appreciate the chairman's attention to this 
issue.
  Mr. Hobson, would you also agree with the need to address these 
concerns? Would you also help us with the regulatory process?
  Mr. HOBSON. Absolutely.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the distinguished chairman and the 
ranking member.
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with the subcommittee chairman 
and ranking member regarding the Corps' regulatory program.
  On June 19, 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision 
regarding the scope of the Federal Government's jurisdictions over 
wetlands and other water bodies under the Clean

[[Page H6682]]

Water Act. Just last week, almost a year after the Rapanos decision was 
issued, the Army Corps and EPA issued joint field guidance interpreting 
the decision.
  Because this guidance took almost a year to develop and issue, Corps 
districts around the country have thousands of backlog applications and 
projects seeking jurisdictional determinations and permits. 
Unfortunately, while the newly issued guidance sets targets for the 
Corps to complete and review applications, it did not review any plan 
for dealing with the current backlog. It also neglects to provide 
Congress and the American people with the work plan showing how Corps 
resources should be allocated to ensure that the application deadlines 
contained in the guidance of already existing statutes are met.
  I thank you for the substantial increase in regulatory funding that 
is contained in this bill. These funds will go a long way towards 
ensuring that the Corps has the resources to meet the requirements as 
outlined in the June 5 guidance.
  However, we need to ensure that the Corps focuses those resources 
where they are most needed, toward ending the backlog of over 20,000 
outstanding applications and making certain it does not happen again.
  I hope that you and the committee, Mr. Chairman, will recognize the 
importance of this issue and work in conference to include language 
requiring the Corps to show Congress that it is addressing the wetlands 
permit backlog and has the plan in place to meet the additional review 
requirements under the newly issued guidance.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue. There is 
a theme in the last two colloquies, and it's a regulatory process. I 
certainly agree with the gentleman that the Corps' regulatory program 
needs to do a better job meeting its deadlines, especially with regard 
to section 404 permits under the newly issued guidance.
  The gentleman's concerns are very timely, and they are warranted. I 
assure him that the subcommittee will work hard to address this issue 
as the bill moves to conference.
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. I appreciate the chairman's attention to 
this issue.
  Mr. Hobson, would you agree with the need to address these concerns 
with the regulatory program?
  Mr. SIMPSON. In the place of the ranking member, absolutely.


              Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

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

       Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Westmoreland:
       Page 3, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $481,186,000)''.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would reduce the amount 
by $481,186,000. It's in the area of construction.
  Last year, $2.37 billion was spent. The President requested $1.5 
billion, and the proposed budget is a little over $2 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, we have talked about the overspending, and we have just 
heard about the 404 permitting process and the regulatory process. Let 
me say that the Corps of Engineers is a great organization. They do a 
wonderful job.
  The problem is that they have a general or colonel, depending on what 
area of the country it is, that rotates in or out, and what we are left 
with are life-long bureaucrats that control the Corps of Engineers. I 
appreciate listening to the chairman of the subcommittee and the 
ranking member and others as they have promised to get into speeding up 
the process and going through these regulations and making sure that 
these projects that are so important to our citizens move along at a 
pace and not impaired by just red tape and bureaucracy.
  This construction area is somewhere that we have spent a lot of 
dollars.
  The President came back, and as we mentioned in the last amendment 
that we had, and said, look, we have got such a backlog of projects 
already, why don't we make sure and get those out of the way before we 
go on to spending more money.
  Let me say this, even though we may look at this as a construction, 
when you put more money into these agencies, it does nothing but build 
a bureaucracy and broaden the red tape that our citizens have to go 
through to deal with these agencies.
  As I made the last comment on the last amendment, there has been at 
least $105 billion in new Federal spending over the next 5 years that 
has been authorized, and will be authorized by this new Democratic 
Congress, the leadership of this House. In enacting the largest tax 
increase in American history, this Democratic budget will allow for $23 
billion in spending over what the President's budget request was.

                              {time}  1230

  We, as a party, as a former majority party, the Republican Party, 
understood that people got tired of their government growing at a rate 
so much faster than the population of this country and the excessive 
spending that we did. It's time for us to try to get back the 
confidence of the American people, not just Republicans, or the 
minority party, but Congress in general. The ratings of this Congress 
is at a record low, record low.
  The majority seems to think that they've heard the voice last 
November of the American people. Well, I hope that they're listening to 
the voice now because their rating is even lower than what the 
Republican rating was last November.
  But this amendment is designed to save the taxpayers about $480 
million, and although, there again, the last amendment was just for $30 
million, this one's for $481 million, it's just a small dent in the 
amount of money that we're spending here. But I think it is a small 
indication to the people of this country that we're willing to be wise 
stewards of their money.
  So I ask all of the Members here today if they would support this 
amendment to reduce the construction in the Corps of Engineers by $481 
million.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment, but I don't disagree with everything he has enunciated in 
his defense of his position.
  The two previous speakers before the gentleman talked about red tape 
and delay in the regulatory process with Army Corps. I would assume 
that every member of this subcommittee has had those meetings with the 
Corps, and we are certainly trying to rectify that problem on the 
theory that the sooner projects can be completed, the more benefit will 
enure to the taxpayers of this country and its citizens.
  The gentleman's also right to enumerate the large backlog that we 
have on construction and other Corps facilities in this country, and 
that is one of the things that we are trying to address in this bill.
  I would point out that the approach that we have taken, not just for 
the fiscal year 2008 bill, but in the last several years under the 
leadership of then-Chairman Hobson, was to make sure that we face the 
challenges of the future in a very disciplined and rigorous approach 
that encompasses a broader context.
  The bill continues the financial management contractor reforms to 
ensure that the Corps manages its budget to the best interest of the 
taxpayers. The recommendations include direction that the Corps 
continues to take action in considering additional factors as they 
proceed in the planning process.
  And again, it has been the custom of this subcommittee in designing 
and structuring bills for the last several years to look at projects 
and marshal our resources so that some are completed, as opposed to 
bumbling on forever. And I wouldn't argue with the gentleman about that 
concern.
  We have, again, done that in this bill to make sure that those 
additional construction dollars that the gentleman seeks to remove from 
the bill are put to good and rigorous use. And I would point out that 
this is not an abstraction. This goes to the core of people's health 
and safety.
  Two floods ago, on the little Calumet River in Northwest Indiana, we 
had a gentleman in Highland, Indiana, lose his life. He was only one 
life in one flood. But for that man, and for his family, and for that 
community, it was a tragedy. We are constructing a flood control 
project that insures that that never happens again.

[[Page H6683]]

  That's why we have flood control programs in the city of Dallas and 
its vicinities, to make sure that when you have significant events, as 
we have had this week in the State of Texas, that you do not have loss 
of life and, hopefully, you can diminish the loss of property.
  We have huge commercial centers, ports like Long Beach, ports like 
the city of New York, ports like Baltimore, up and down our coast. We 
want to make sure that the commerce of this country moves as 
efficiently as possible, so that our economy grows and we can provide 
good paying jobs for all of our residents.
  We have a State capitol in the most populous State in this country, 
Sacramento, California, one dike a way from a catastrophic event as far 
as the loss of human life and the destruction of properties.
  Those are the types of projects, and those are the types of 
priorities that we are attempting to get at in this bill. And that's 
why these moneys are set aside, and would be opposed to their removal 
from this bill.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of the amendment to reduce funding 
for the Corps of Engineers construction account. And let me give you 
some perspective on this.
  This account is already chronically underfunded by the 
administration, and it has been in the past. And there's already a 
backlog of several billion dollars of Corps construction projects.
  Projects already underway, I'm going to talk about one here, just to 
give you an example of what happens, such as the Olmsted Lock and Dam, 
wind up costing far more and taking far longer to complete because of 
funding constraints in this account.
  The subcommittee is trying to do the responsible thing by dedicating 
sufficient funds to address this backlog. Our priority is on completing 
projects that are already underway and limiting new starts. And I can 
tell you there were a lot of Members when I was chairman that got 
really ticked off at me, especially new Members, because they had new 
starts and we wouldn't do them because we said we've got to finish what 
we've got before we go on to other things.
  The Olmsted Dam, an example. It was supposed to be completed in 20 
years and for a cost of $700 million. Because we didn't do it and fund 
it right, and money was taken and put into other accounts, that's now 
grown to $1.5 billion to finish this very needed dam on the Ohio River. 
And the project still isn't done. We don't have the money to fund all 
that they could use on this project in any one year.
  Part of the problem is that this Congress, over the years, keeps 
adding projects to our account, and then we don't fund them, or we fund 
them partially, and the cost goes up.
  I think it would be irresponsible, at this point, with the things 
that we've put into effect, to stop new starts, to complete projects 
and get them finished and stop this cost growth, to take this money out 
now. Frankly, this is one account where I think we could have used more 
money over the years and we could have done a better job.
  He is right when we talk about Sacramento. Sacramento, those levees 
were built years ago, some of them by farmers, some of them by we don't 
know who. And they haven't been maintained to the degree they should be 
maintained. And it's a problem waiting to happen.
  We're trying to take responsible steps, but we've run into the red 
tape and stuff. The Corps is trying. We've tried to do some things with 
the Corps. We're continuing to improve the Corps.
  Frankly, 4 years ago when I became chairman, there were a lot of 
things wrong with the Corps that we've made right. I think the Corps is 
doing a much better job today. They've got a lot of new management 
techniques that we're using that they weren't doing in the past.
  I'll give you an example. When I became chairman I asked to see their 
vision for this country and the waterways. They didn't have one. We 
asked them, What is your 5-year development plan for the waterways of 
this country? They didn't have one. But they do now.
  Now is not the time to stop them, because under Chairman Visclosky, 
and previously, we've started to do the right thing to stop this cost 
increase and to get this under control. And frankly, if we would take 
this amendment, we would do great damage to the infrastructure or the 
future infrastructure of this country.
  So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out to the 
ranking member that he's exactly right. And if you look at the bill, I 
think it will talk about that specific amounts of this money has been 
itemized to go to section 107 of the River Harbor Act of 1960; $45 
million to go to the Flood Control Act of 1948; $10 million to go to 
the Flood Control Act of 1946; $25 million to go exclusively for 
projects of the Water Resource Development Act of 1986; $25 million for 
the Water Resource Act of 1996. This is all because we have continued 
to put money into construction, and I hope that what the ranking member 
was saying is that there's no new projects in here. And maybe this is 
to finish up some of the projects. Maybe we can go back and finish some 
of the projects of the 1946 act or the 1986 act.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. There are no new projects in this bill because there are 
no new projects proposed in the bill at this point. There could be 
later. I would hope not.
  And I want to tell you, we also in the past took out the President's 
new starts too, not just the Congress's. We took out the President's.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I'm glad to hear that from the ranking member.
  But let's have a start. Let's prioritize. Let's tell the Corps with 
this amendment that we're going to cut this money, and that we need to 
see a prioritization schedule from them on how we're going to spend it; 
that we're going to be responsible for taxpayers' money.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Again, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his 
leadership and trying to bring some level of fiscal sanity and fiscal 
accountability back to this body.
  And I'm not unsympathetic to what I just heard our ranking member 
say. But I guess I get somewhat frustrated when I see spending bill 
after spending bill after spending bill, and I see the largest single 
tax increase in American history enacted by the new majority.
  I see absolutely no effort on the part of the new majority to do 
anything to rein in out-of-control entitlement spending. Unfortunately, 
there are few opportunities to try to save the poor, beleaguered, 
American taxpayer some of his funds.
  And again, I'm not sure that this bill is being shortchanged. It does 
exceed the President's request. It does provide funding above last 
year, in this case, increasing funding by roughly twice the rate of 
inflation.
  There are many American families who don't have the luxury of seeing 
their incomes go up by twice the rate of inflation. Why are we 
expecting families to do with less so that government can do with more?
  And again, I'm not unsympathetic to what the ranking member had to 
say. But there are so few opportunities.
  And I understand good things can be done with these funds. But 
occasionally, Mr. Chairman, we have to stop and we have to take a look 
at where this funding is coming from. And I talk about the poor, 
beleaguered, American taxpayer who, if the Democrats have their way and 
the largest single tax increase in American history is allowed to be 
imposed upon the American people, will see their taxes go up by roughly 
$3,000 a year.
  And I hear from some of those taxpayers from around the country. I 
heard from Debbie in Lake Zurich, Illinois. She writes, ``I cannot 
survive a $3,000 tax hike. I am a single, 53-year old woman living in 
Lake Zurich who is drowning in taxes. Because of taxes I've been forced 
to put my house on the market. Any more tax increases will create a 
huge financial burden.''
  I heard from Rose in Turnersville, New Jersey. ``As an older adult 
still in the work force, I'm living paycheck to paycheck. Between 
property taxes and all the other taxes I pay, I will soon

[[Page H6684]]

give up my home. Just affording gas to get to work in my car is now a 
trial. Please keep the tax cuts we already have.''
  As we talk about things we're going to do to safeguard people's 
homes, how ironic it is, with the largest tax increase in history we're 
going to spend the money and help take their homes away.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, 20 years ago Congress declared that my home State of 
Nevada would become this Nation's nuclear garbage dump. The legislation 
is known in the State of Nevada as the ``Screw Nevada Bill.''
  Two decades later, the families I represent remain overwhelmingly 
opposed to having toxic nuclear waste buried 90 minutes from their 
homes, businesses, and where their children play. They have seen the 
mismanagement at Yucca Mountain, the lack of quality assurance and 
recent scandals where workers admitted to having falsified work on the 
site.
  Nevada families know that there is currently no canister capable of 
storing nuclear waste for thousands of years and that, once inside of 
Yucca Mountain, corrosive elements will cause the canisters that do 
exist to rapidly fail, corrode, releasing radioactivity into nearby 
water supplies. Moms and dads fear thousands of truckloads of nuclear 
waste barreling down the highways of southern Nevada, home to more than 
2 million families and a destination that attracts more than 40 million 
visitors a year. They have seen over the past 25 years how promises for 
``fair treatment'' and ``sound science'' have been trumped by raw 
politics. And in 2002 they watched as Congress ignored Nevada's 
objections and declared that Yucca Mountain should go forward in spite 
of serious unresolved scientific issues that linger to this very day.
  The circuit court of appeals decision that threw out the 10,000-year 
EPA radiation standards, there is a reason that they threw it out. 
Currently, no radiation standards exist for Yucca Mountain because they 
would have to find radiation standards for a 300,000-year time, leaving 
most of us to wonder if the financial status of the nuclear industry is 
more important than protecting the public safety and lives of American 
citizens.
  Fortunately, Nevadans are not alone in opposing Yucca Mountain. 
Across this Nation, communities that face decades of nuclear waste 
shipments have raised their voices in opposition to Yucca Mountain. 
They share our concerns about terrorist attacks or an accident 
involving this lethal cargo. One nuclear waste spill could threaten 
thousands of lives, shut down rail lines and highways, and cost 
millions of dollars to clean up. Who is going to pay for that cleanup?
  Post-9/11 we know all too well that there are those who will stop at 
nothing to strike at this Nation. Terrorists seeking to release 
radioactive materials or to secure a dirty bomb could target these 
waste shipments for attack, making each train or truckload a disaster 
waiting to happen. Our communities do not have the resources and our 
first responders simply do not have the training to deal with this 
threat.
  Mr. Chairman, there are more reasons to oppose Yucca Mountain. This 
literal hole in the Nevada desert has already cost taxpayers $12 
billion, and the sky is the limit when it comes to future spending: 
$100 billion, $200 billion, $300 billion? Nobody can tell us and nobody 
knows. The last time the DOE updated the cost analysis for Yucca 
Mountain was 2001. The Department of Energy said in 2006, and again 
this year, they will provide updated cost analysis. They haven't yet 
done that because they don't know. The DOE's failure to provide us with 
an up-to-date life-cycle cost analysis for this project is just one 
more reason to oppose this multibillion dollar boondoggle.
  And here is another: Yucca Mountain is even further away today than 
it was 20 years ago when we first started down this path. After $12 
billion in spending, Yucca Mountain is now so far behind schedule that 
it will not even open until 2020 or beyond. Remember, it was supposed 
to be 1998. Meanwhile, the last shipments will not even leave the 
nuclear reactor sites until 2047. That is 40 years from today.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a better solution. The first step is to keep 
nuclear waste where it is now in hardened dry-cask storage containers 
that can be secured for the next 100 years. End Yucca Mountain before 
we waste another $200 billion to $300 billion. And then, finally, find 
a real solution to securing this Nation's nuclear waste.
  I urge you to vote to cut wasteful spending at Yucca Mountain, 
protect 50 million Americans in the communities all across our Nation 
who will be in danger from nuclear waste shipments and the families who 
oppose plans to turn Nevada into a radioactive garbage dump.
  Before I yield back, I want to thank both Mr. Hobson and Mr. 
Visclosky for yielding me this time. I appreciate their courtesy that 
is of monumental importance to the people I represent, the citizens of 
Nevada, and those who are living on these very dangerous transportation 
routes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                   Mississippi River and Tributaries

       For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects 
     and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley 
     below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law, 
     $278,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such sums as are necessary to cover the Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for inland harbors shall be 
     derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.


              Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

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

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Westmoreland:
       Page 4, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $18,000,000)''.

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it cuts 
$18 million from the $278 million authorized under this bill. It is a 
small cut. Although $278 million is already authorized in current law, 
it is what the President's request was; and even though we have looked 
at other amendments and, hopefully, the whole House will see to do some 
cuts, this appropriations bill is $1.1 billion over the President's 
request. So this $18 million simply brings back the President's request 
for the Mississippi River and Tributaries program.
  The Mississippi River and Tributaries last year was $396.6 million in 
2007. There has been plenty of money there, I think, to look at these 
harbors, look at the flood damage, look at the things that should be 
done there; and this is a mild decrease of the $18 million.
  But let me again reiterate, as I did on the previous two amendments, 
that this is in addition to $105 billion in new Federal spending over 
the next 5 years that has been authorized by the new leadership in this 
House. It has been done by enacting the largest tax increase in 
American history. And this budget that we are looking at for 2008 
allows $23 billion in new spending that will be funded by the largest 
tax increase in American history. This amendment, while being only $18 
million, is a small dent. I can't believe that I have been in Congress 
long enough to say ``only $18 million,'' because that is more money 
than most American families will see in one lifetime or two lifetimes. 
It is just a small dent in this year's budget. And, Mr. Chairman, I 
hope that all Members will see their way to cut this amount of money 
out of this particular appropriations bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I again would reference some of his words where he indicated that $18 
million is no small sum of money. It is a very significant sum of 
money, and I

[[Page H6685]]

would agree with him. It is a significant sum of money, and it is very 
important to the programs that comprise the Mississippi River and 
Tributaries Program. And my concern is, if you would, carving out a 
particular geographic region for this particular cut and would 
emphasize that while it is but one geographic region and water system 
within our country, there are consequences of the amendments because 
channel improvement programs in Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee would be affected. 
There are levees for the Mississippi River in States like Arkansas, 
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. 
There is a flood waste system in the State of Louisiana, and there are 
operation and maintenance costs.
  These are all significant and important programs dealing, again, with 
the priority of people's health and safety, the movement of commerce, 
and the protection of property.
  I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Again I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia for his amendment 
in this series of amendments, which, as I understand it, would bring 
the funding to the President's level, which, in most cases for many of 
us, is still too much.
  As I stated earlier in the debate, Mr. Chairman, I am still concerned 
that although clearly good cases are made for how these funds can be 
used, I look at the larger picture. We still have a bill before us that 
is growing this part of government at over twice the rate of inflation. 
Again, we are asking American families to somehow do more with less, 
and sometimes you wonder if government isn't doing less with more.
  This is on top of the pressure that has been put on the family budget 
by the new Democrat majority's enacting the largest single tax increase 
in American history in their budget. This is on top of the Democrat 
majority that is trying to increase what we call nondefense 
discretionary spending by $23 billion above the level of last year. 
This is in addition to the $6 billion, Mr. Chairman, that they added to 
the omnibus spending bill at the first of the Congress and the $17 
billion in nonemergency spending that they tried to put into the 
emergency supplemental to support our troops that somehow we all know 
ended up with funding for peanuts and spinach and many other items that 
many Americans would consider being part of a pork-barrel spending 
effort.
  So, again, I would have more sympathy with those who oppose the bill 
if I saw any indication whatsoever that the new Democrat majority was 
trying to save the family budget from the Federal budget. And, instead, 
I see this explosion of spending, and I haven't even included what the 
gentleman from Georgia aptly observed, that we hadn't even completed 6 
months of the year but already the new Democrat majority, on top of all 
the old spending, has now authorized over the next 5-year budget window 
an additional $105 billion of new spending. And you wonder where does 
it all end? Where does it all end?
  I said earlier that I wish we could be debating on this floor 
opportunities to actually reform entitlement spending. We are dealing 
with a smaller portion of the Federal budget now, but we know that the 
longest journey starts with the first step. And, Mr. Chairman, we need 
to observe, and don't take my word for it, about what is going to 
happen to the American family and the American economy if we don't take 
some small steps to try to reduce the rate of growth of government.

                              {time}  1300

  Let's listen to our Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, who was 
quoted in a House Budget Committee. Without ``early and meaningful 
action'' to address the growth in entitlement spending, ``the U.S. 
economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing 
much of the cost.''
  Let's listen to the Comptroller General, our chief fiduciary officer 
in the United States. He said, ``The rising costs of government 
entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic 
consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.'' Instead, 
this body kicks the can down the road.
  And now we have a bill before us which, although it does many worthy 
things, is increasing the rate of spending of this part of government 
twice the rate of inflation; again, taking money away from American 
families after the single largest tax increase in history, threatening 
to double taxes on their children.
  And so, we've had three amendments here in a row that would take 
incredibly modest steps to try to reduce the rate of growth of 
government. You don't even have to cut government, you just have to 
reduce the rate of growth to bring some fiscal sanity from this new 
spending and tax economic debt spiral that the Democrats seem to want 
to foist us into.
  So, I would urge the House to adopt the amendment of the gentleman 
from Georgia. I wish we could do more, but it is a modest start on a 
very, very long journey.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  First, I would like to lend my support to my chairman of this 
subcommittee, and also Mr. Hobson, for their great work on this bill. I 
think it's a great bill. I think you have really shown the rest of us 
in Congress how a committee can and should work together for the good 
of the country.
  I would like to address a few issues that have been brought up, not 
necessarily related to the bill at hand, with regard to spending. And I 
am glad to see a couple of my friends on the Republican side have found 
some religion over the past few months. These were the same Members who 
were here over the past 6 years, Republican control of the House, 
Republican control of the Senate, Republican White House, and ran up $4 
trillion in debt for the United States of America. We didn't hear boo 
from them while all this was going on. And the biggest problem has been 
most of that money was borrowed from foreign countries, Japan, China, 
OPEC countries; $4 trillion mostly borrowed from foreign countries by 
the Republican Party.
  They've also mentioned that there has been stress on families. Well, 
I'm glad they finally came around to understand that, too. And some of 
the things that we have already done, Mr. Chairman, have addressed 
those issues: $700 increase in the Pell Grant, that will relieve some 
pressure for families; student loans rates being cut in half, that will 
reduce pressure on families; increase in the minimum wage, which begins 
this summer; increased SCHIP coverage; increased coverage for women's 
health care needs. These are issues that are going to relieve the 
pressure that most American families are feeling, and it took a 
Democratic Congress to implement that.
  Now, to the heart and soul of this bill. I think this bill does two 
things, Mr. Chairman. One, this is a national security issue. What Mr. 
Hobson and Mr. Visclosky have done here is increase the security of 
this country by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, by increasing 
our funding for the ``loose nukes'' program so that we can be safer. 
And this dovetails perfectly into what we've already been doing here 
with the Homeland Security bill, where we're going to have 3,000 more 
Border Patrol agents, where we are going to have technology for our 
ports so we are making sure we cover the cargo in. This bill fits 
directly in with that. Money for our first responders, COPS program. 
This all fits together as a piece of a national security bill.
  And this bill also, I think equal to the national security 
provisions, this is a bill about economic development. The problems we 
have been having over the last 30 years is that wages have been 
stagnant. And Rose in Illinois and some of the other people that my 
friend from Texas have mentioned have had stagnant wages for 30 years. 
This bill makes the kind of investments that the study from the 
National Academy of Sciences recommended, ``Rising Above the Gathering 
Storm.'' The head of that study was the former CEO of Lockheed Martin. 
And he noted, along with a very distinguished panel, that the 
connection between research and development and growth cannot be 
understated, especially research in the physical sciences. And when you 
look at what this bill does, 3,500 researchers are funded through this 
bill; $93 million for research with hybrid cars, $49 million for 
advanced combustion research, $48 million for materials research for

[[Page H6686]]

fuel efficient cars, $23 million for fuels technology, $708 million for 
coal energy research.
  This is an economic development bill. When we began to fund NASA, 
that created thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs in science 
and engineering. This bill will do the same thing. It will give Rose in 
Illinois and all of those other folks who have had stagnant wages an 
opportunity to go into a field that is growing with public research and 
private research. This is a jobs bill, this is an economic development 
bill for a lot of the regions who have suffered under the global 
economy.
  I appreciate what the chairman has done, I appreciate what the 
ranking member from the great State of Ohio has done with this bill. 
This is a jobs bill and this is a national security bill. I urge its 
passage, and I urge that this amendment go down.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gene Green of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Davis of Alabama, 
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. 2641) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________