Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 99 (Tuesday, June 19, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6686-H6695]
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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2641.

{time} 1307

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
pending was amendment No. 24 by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Westmoreland).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding.
I just wanted to make a few comments about my friend Mr. Ryan, who I
listened to many nights, Mr. Chairman, while I was up in the chair
where you're at. Many nights, I listened to the 30-something Group get
up and rail and talk about all the wasteful spending and about how much
money we were spending and about how we had gone into debt and about
what the debt was. And I hear Mr. Ryan stand up and talk about economic
development. I'm going to tell you the best bills this country has ever
had for economic development was the Bush tax cuts. Those were the best
economic bills we've had for economic development in this country. Look
at where the Dow is today at 13,000-plus. I haven't been keeping up
with it, I don't really have a lot of money in the market. But we have
busted records continually, and it has been because of those economic
growth tax cut bills that we have had and the economic policies of this
White House.
And as my gentleman friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) said, we don't
necessarily agree with the President's recommendation. We feel like
that's probably more money than we need to spend. But at least it is a
recommendation that we need to go back to from the proposal of what the
Democratic leadership has proposed.
And you know, if you talk about striking any money from an agency's
budget, I think you get their attention. The ranking member was telling
me that when he was the chairman 2 years ago, he asked for the Corps to
send 10 of their most important projects that need to be completed. He
hasn't heard from them yet. And so we need to send a message to some of
these agencies and say look, you are going to give us the information
we want, you are going to be accountable, and you are going to be under
some authority.
So, I think we need to send that message loud and clear. And although
some of these cuts are mighty small, I think they will do a good job in
getting some attention. I'm glad to see that the 30-something Group is
now, and that the Blue Dogs, or whatever kind of dogs they are, that I
listened to also, Mr. Chairman, when I was up there late at night,
listened to them for hours at a time talk about wasteful spending, I
hope that they will join me in an hour, in Special Orders, when we talk
about the largest tax increase in the history of this country and the
runaway spending that we now have, even larger spending than it was
when we were in charge. I hope they will join me in that hour and we
can get up and talk about being good stewards of the taxpayers'
dollars.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, this Republican minority is intensely
interested in making sure that we do the right thing for the country,
but it should be noted that these bills should not be about economic
development, they should be about solving water problems that we have
with the dollars that are generated by the taxpayer to solve problems
with water, with flooding and with the various elements of ensuring we
have clean and better water that is available.
This should not be an economic development spending bill. I disagree
with the gentleman from Ohio, and it is my hope that this body will
recognize this economic development spending bill for what it is, as
opposed to a water resources bill. I am disappointed to hear that it's
characterized that way. And that is why we support the gentleman from
Georgia with his amendment.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I wish to engage Subcommittee Chairman Mr. Visclosky in a colloquy
for purposes of underscoring the strategic role of petroleum coke
gasification to reduce dependence on the foreign supply of energy, and
illustrating the technological feasibility of petroleum coke
gasification projects to sequester carbon.
Mr. Chairman, the Energy and Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58,
has a specific provision, section 415, 42 U.S.C. 15975, authorizing the
Secretary of Energy to provide loan guarantees for at least five
petroleum coke gasification projects. Petroleum coke gasification
projects are also qualified under title 17, the Innovative Technology
Loan Guarantee Program under 1703 (c) 2 and (c) 3 as an industrial
gasification project and pet coke gasification project, respectively.
This provision of the law recognizes the critical importance of these
projects in promoting efficient management of energy sources within the
United States.
Domestic gasification of ``petcoke,'' as it is also called in the
U.S. refining industry, will reduce foreign exports of this product.
Reducing exports of petcoke will result in reduced emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and other gases resulting from production,
transportation and burning of fossil fuels associated with energy
sources currently being used instead of petcoke. Globally, it would
also result in lower emissions from petcoke since this product often is
not being burned in clean processes when it is exported.
Technology exists today to sequester carbon dioxide byproduct from
the petcoke gasification process, pressurize the gas, and inject it
underground as a

[[Page H6687]]

petroleum recovery enhancement technique.

{time} 1315

Carbon sequestration can be a viable and compatible technology with
petcoke gasification where the geology, ongoing field production, and
relative distance to the location of a reliable source of carbon
dioxide gas co-exist.
Petcoke gasification and carbon sequestration technologies would be
in use more widely in key regions in our country if market-entry costs
were not so high.
Mr. Chairman, reducing the cost of capital to place petcoke
gasification technology into service is the very objective Congress
recognized and set out to implement in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The Department of Energy has not allocated sufficient funds for loan
guarantees to demonstrate commercial readiness of the petcoke
gasification technology, which will reduce dependence on foreign
sources of energy. Adding carbon sequestration will require further
allocation of Federal funds to implement this important technology.
Mr. Chairman, I urge your consideration to expand the types of
projects that receive funding under title XVII of the Energy and Water
appropriations bill to include already authorized petcoke projects that
will enhance U.S. energy independence. I also urge your support for
appropriating sufficient resources for one to two petcoke gasification
projects in the fiscal year 2008 funding bill for the Department of
Energy and hope you can take this into consideration when negotiating
in conference committee with the Senate.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to
thank Mr. Green for bringing to the committees's attention and my
attention the need for adequate funding of these invaluable
technologies.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague,
my good friend from Indiana and Chair of the subcommittee, for bringing
up this important piece of legislation.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 2641. I am particularly pleased the
committee has provided the Army Corps of Engineers with $5.6 billion,
which is $713 million more than the President's request and $246
million more than last year's appropriations. These funds will help
strengthen our Nation's flood control programs and navigation
infrastructure, which is particularly important to my district.
Along the Houston Ship Channel, we have requested $35 million for
operations and maintenance on the deepening and widening project. This
continued O&M funding would be used to keep the channel at its
authorized depth, which is critical to keeping the channel navigable
for the tankers that bring in crude oil to our refineries. We also have
submitted a request for the environmental mitigation required as a
result of the deepening and widening project and would hope that the
committee will give that request its full consideration in conference.
Our area relies heavily on Corps of Engineers' funding, since we're
not only an energy-producing area but also a low-lying area in the
middle of a flood plain. I am hopeful that a portion of the increased
funding for the Army Corps of Engineers can be directed to Greens
Bayou, Hunting Bayou and Halls Bayou, which were flooded during
Tropical Storm Allison in 2001. These authorized projects are located
in blue-collar residential areas in my district, where the threat of
future flooding is all too real. We dodged Hurricane Rita in 2005, but
we need to step up our flood control efforts on these projects to give
our residents adequate protection when the next storm hits. I
appreciate the committee's continued understanding of the pressing
flood control needs in our area.
I am also hopeful funding can be provided for other meritorious
projects in our district, including the University of Houston's Center
for Clean Fuels and Power Generation, the Very High Differential
Pressure Sub-sea Multiphase Pumping System, and the Texas Hydrogen
Highway.
This bill also makes a significant investment in researching and
developing alternative energy sources which will lead us away from our
dependence on fossil fuels. The bill provides $1.6 billion for research
into solar energy, biomass and bio-refinery systems, technologies to
reduce vehicle emissions, and technologies to make buildings more
energy efficient. It also provides much needed resources for
weatherization assistance grants which will weather-proof the homes of
low-income disabled and elderly individuals.
An investment in new sources of energy is critical to meeting our
future energy needs, but in the interim we must continue to improve on
the conventional sources of energy we use today. That is why I am
pleased this bill funds the demonstration of technology that captures
carbon exhaust, and researches how to make fossil fuels more efficient
and sustainable.
These investments in both conventional and renewable energy research
will help meet America's future energy needs and diversify our energy
portfolio. The University of Houston's Center for Clean Fuels and Power
Generation is contributing to this effort, and I have requested funding
for the center's expansion. The center's work to conduct cross-
disciplinary research and develop technology to spur the discovery and
commercialization of new fuels to provide the Nation's transportation
and construction sectors with low-cost, reliable and sustainable power
sources. I hope the committee will work with us to include funding for
this important project in conference.
I commend the Chairman, and also my good friend from Texas,
Congressman Chet Edwards, for their hard work on this legislation, and
urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Westmoreland amendment. I
would like to point out that the President's budget request came in at
$1.1 billion more than what the majority party has requested in the
bill that is before us today. Also, the bill before us today is $1.3
billion over last year's bill.
Now, $1 billion, that goes to the $23 billion or so that the
combination of the 12 appropriations bills will be over what the
President has set forward. And even what the President set forward, I
might say, is a little on the high side. But when you look at $23
billion in excess spending, $1.1 billion just in this bill, Mr.
Chairman, we have to start somewhere with fiscal restraint and fiscal
discipline.
I am a new Member in Congress, and I heard a lot of talk during the
campaign, especially by some of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, that we were going to have a new day of fiscal discipline. Well,
I am still waiting for that day to dawn, and I certainly don't see it
today.
This bill is higher than what the President has asked, and that means
that the President has pledged to veto this bill. If this goes through
the House and then through the Senate and comes out in anything like
the form that it is in right now, it's going to be vetoed; and then we
are going to come back, and we will go through this whole exercise all
over again.
So I think the way we should avoid that brain damage and that waste
of time and waste of expense is just to bite the bullet right now.
Let's stick to the amount that the President has requested. That is
still over last year's budget.
So I think we should support the Westmoreland amendment. He has
offered several good amendments. This is one of them. We have to start
somewhere, or we are going to be back later this year.
So let's have some of the fiscal discipline that I thought we were
going to be in store for, and this would be a good place to start. This
is as good a place as any. And I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as Congress works to expand domestic energy production
alternatives, one area of renewed focus is nuclear power production.
For those of us who support nuclear energy, it is essential that there
be adequate oversight and independent research to make sure that
nuclear technology is safe and sustainable.
For the past 50 years, Mr. Chairman, that independent research has
been the primary objective of Savannah River Ecology Lab. In fact, the
ecology lab was founded to give the public confidence that the Energy
Department's works at Savannah River Site would not sacrifice public
safety or the environment.
That work continues today. In fact, the lab is the only lab in the
Nation funded by the Department of Energy that conducts independent
research into the long-term effects of low-level radiation and nuclear
energy production.
Unfortunately, the Department of Energy doesn't seem to want
independent oversight, and they have zeroed out the $4 million in
funding for the lab. It seems to me that $4 million a year is a small
price to pay to make sure that the ongoing work at the SRS, and nuclear
energy production in general, is being done in a manner that

[[Page H6688]]

promotes public safety and protects our land, our air, and our
waterways.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the
gentleman for bringing the work of this lab to the attention of the
House and to the committee. I certainly will want to work with the
gentleman on his concerns.
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with
him and our colleagues in the other body to make sure that the Nation
has the adequate oversight and the independent research that is needed
to safely promote nuclear technology.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Westmoreland amendment and in
opposition of the underlying bill.
Let's just review the numbers for a moment. This Energy and Water
appropriation bill not only exceeds the President's request; it also
increases spending by twice the rate of inflation. Under the Democrat
budget resolution, nonemergency spending will increase by $81.4 billion
compared to 2007, growing more than 9 percent, or triple the rate of
inflation. That is triple the rate of our constituents', the American
taxpayers', ability to pay for these bills. This is on top of the $6
billion that was already spent in the current year omnibus, and the $17
billion in non-war emergency spending that was added to the Iraq war
supplemental.
But with this particular bill, here are my concerns: number one, it
further opens the spigot on new spending. This is $1.1 billion above
the President's request and $1.3 billion above the 2007 enacted levels.
Again, far in excess of the rate of inflation.
Number two, it adds a lot of green for uncertain returns. The
President requested $1.2 billion for renewable and energy efficiency
under the Advanced Energy Initiative and the Reducing U.S. Dependence
on Imported Energy Sources. This bill increases spending by 50 percent,
yet it is extremely unclear whether this enormous boost in spending
will actually do anything to achieve energy independence.
This bill also exploits the Democrats' pre-funding maneuver. This was
wrong when Republicans did it. It is wrong when Democrats do it. Both
parties have been doing these pre-funding maneuvers. This is basically
taking from next year's bill.
I think the fact that they have already pre-funded $1.6 billion for
FY 2008 Corps of Engineers spending frees up room under the cap so they
can spend more money. So you have about a $1.8 billion smoke-and-
mirrors pre-funding mechanism that allows them to spend even more
money. That brings the total on top of the $1.3 billion to almost $3
billion over last year's enacted levels.
Now, $3 billion in an almost $3 trillion budget, people ask why
should it matter. Why should we talk about these things. Here is why,
Mr. Chairman, this matters: it starts one step at a time.
If you want to be fiscally conservative, if you want to be fiscally
disciplined and watch the way we spend taxpayer dollars, we have to do
it at every stage in the process. We will have to watch how we spend
our taxpayer dollars.
The big problem I have with this budget resolution that is guiding
this process, the current budget resolution leads to the largest tax
increase in American history. Why on Earth would we want to pass the
largest tax increase in American history at a time when our economy
needs more jobs?
The tax cuts that occurred in 2003 created an unprecedented 7.9
million new jobs. It gave us 3 years of double-digit revenue growth,
which helped us cut the deficit by more than 50 percent. And the key to
reducing the deficit further is not increasing taxes or increasing
spending. It is controlling spending.
That is the different vision between our two parties. We believe we
need to balance the budget. The Democrat budget, the Democratic Party
budget, does that too. They propose a balanced budget as well. They
propose a balanced budget at this level of taxing and spending, whereas
we propose a balanced budget at this lower level of taxing and
spending, because we fundamentally believe that people ought to be able
to keep more of their own money in their own pocket.
We don't measure success of a nation by measuring how much more money
we spend in Washington. We measure success of a nation by how free
people are in their own lives and how they have an ability to prosper
and grow and how jobs and opportunities are being created in America.
That is what we believe measures success.
So if we pass budgets that simply call for all this new spending, if
we pass budgets which call for 23 reserve funds to spend $190 billion,
in addition to what this budget right here does, what we are simply
doing is saying we are going to tax people more, and then we are going
to tax them more again, and we are going to spend that money.
That takes freedom and liberty away from taxpayers, away from
individuals. That starves prosperity in America; it doesn't preserve
prosperity in America. And that is why at every stage in this
appropriations process, at every stage in this budget process we have
to be mindful on how much money we are spending.
We are spending more than twice the rate of inflation in this bill.
We are spending three times the rate of inflation on all of these
appropriations bills. And that is far too much, Mr. Chairman. That is
why I urge passage of the Westmoreland amendment and defeat of the
underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I also rise to support the amendment of my colleague
from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland. I want to reiterate some of the
comments that have already been made.
We simply have to start exercising fiscal discipline in this House. I
often talk about how the Republicans missed the mark by overspending in
the last few years and I talk about they, not we, because I came here
as a fiscal conservative. I am even more of a fiscal conservative than
I was when I first came to Congress, and I think most Members of my
party have gotten up and admitted that we have spent too much money in
the last few years. But most people now have seen the error of our
ways, and we know that we have to start cutting, and we need to start
right here. We talked about this last week, but we need to continue to
talk about it.
We are on track for pretty soon 70 cents out of every dollar of
Federal money going in to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, in
the very, very near future. We do not need to take our country in that
direction. We have got to start trimming budgets, and this is the place
to start now.
If we do not do that, we are not only going to see a repeat of what
the Democrats are bringing to us, the biggest tax increase in American
history this year, we are going to continue to see that to the point
where we are going to be taxing most of the money that Americans make,
and we are going to destroy this country with that kind of an attitude.
Our economy is doing great because of the tax cuts that were
instituted in 2001 and 2003, and the only way we can maintain that type
of economy is for us to control spending. We don't have a revenue
problem in this country. We have a spending problem. We need serious
fundamental reform of our spending. We need fiscal discipline.
As my colleagues have said, we are dealing with spending at twice the
rate of inflation. American families cannot stand that. They do not
want us to continue spending at the level that we are spending. It is
on track to be the largest spending increase that we have seen in a
long, long time in this country.
We heard over and over again last year on the floor from the party
that is now the majority party, then the minority party, that we were
spending too much money. Here they are, expanding what was spent last
year, and expanding it at a rate that is simply unsustainable. They
obviously did not mean what they said last year when they said we were
spending too much money.
It is a small cut. Again, I reiterate what my colleagues have said.
We have been in Washington too long when we think of $18 million as a
small cut. But as Everett Dirksen said many, many years ago, ``A
million here and a million there, and pretty soon you are talking about
real money.'' That is what we are doing.
Let me put Federal spending into some context for the American
people.

[[Page H6689]]

The United States Federal Government is on track to spend more money
next year than Germany's entire economy in the year 2005. Germany is
and has been the third largest economy in the world for a long, long
time. There are only two countries in the world with entire economies
that are larger than the U.S. Government budget, the United States
itself and Japan.
So it is important that we start cutting back, and we have to do it a
little bit at a time. If there is anybody in this country who believes
that throwing more money at a problem from the Federal Government's
level solves problems, then they haven't looked at the statistics on
our education system, they haven't looked at the statistics on what has
happened with control of disasters. We know that simply throwing money
at a problem does not solve the problem.
We need accountability, we need efficiency, and we really need to
focus on those issues before we spend additional dollars.
I think that we do need more oversight of how Federal Government
programs are run. But simply throwing more money at the problem won't
create that oversight for us. We have to get down in the trenches,
examine programs, see how money is being spent, and say what effect did
you get from this money you are currently spending.

{time} 1330

In most cases we can probably cut budgets and come out far ahead.
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.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, on Monday morning my constituents in Gainesville,
Texas, woke up to a terrible sight. They woke up to discover their
homes, businesses and city awash in water. Heavy rain in north Texas
over the weekend and early into Monday morning overwhelmed Pecan Creek
and other area streams. There have been several confirmed fatalities,
420 flooded homes, untold millions of dollars' worth of damage in the
north Texas area.
The first responders, the fire people, the swift water rescue teams,
are still in the process of rescue recovery and evaluating the damage
and helping people whose homes and businesses have been destroyed.
This photograph was taken yesterday morning. It is reminiscent of
photographs that were taken during the 1990s, during the 1980s, during
the 1970s, during the 1960s, literally as far back as I can remember.
That is why I have requested funds for a section 205 flood control
project in Gainesville, Texas, and I have every year for the last 3
years.
Progress has been made. Funds have been allocated to the project in
fiscal year 2007, to the Corps' work plan to complete studies in
engineering; but realistically, the time for study has long since
passed. We need construction dollars.
Funding for Pecan Creek was my number one request in the Energy and
Water appropriations bill this year, last year and the year prior. I
hope that the chairman and the ranking member will help by providing
the funding for the construction projects that are so desperately
needed by the citizens of north Texas.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Visclosky
about a critical issue relating to my district, and I appreciate the
gentleman's leadership and the minority ranking member's leadership on
the issue before us.
If I could direct this to Chairman Visclosky, as you know, being from
the Great Lakes region, there is an ever-constant threat of shoreline
erosion on the coast of the Great Lakes. My district is home to
Pennsylvania's only shoreline on the Great Lakes on Lake Erie. Each
year it is of vital importance that sand, displaced by winter storms,
be renourished and redistributed on that shoreline.
Without annual nourishment, the shoreline would erode to the point
where natural resources and habitats are jeopardized or even lost.
Perhaps the most vivid example of this is Presque Isle. Presque Isle is
a unique ecosystem and truly a natural gem. Every year as a State park
it receives over 3.4 million visitors and it receives more visitors
annually than any national park other than Yosemite.
Every year since 1975, the shoreline of this unique feature has
received truckloads of replacement sand. This sand has kept the bird
sanctuary at Gull Point effectively from eroding away. Birds that have
been sighted here or call the sanctuary home include federally
endangered species such as the piping plover. Without sand, however,
Gull Point and other areas of Presque Isle's shoreline will be washed
away, leaving these vulnerable species with even less habitat for
recovery.
While there are no specific project allocations in this bill at this
time, I encourage the subcommittee to allocate sufficient funds to the
Army Corps of Engineers' construction account and make every effort to
afford the beach nourishment project at Presque Isle at Erie,
Pennsylvania, the resources required to be able to restore the sand
lost from winter storms. And also, as part of an ongoing Federal
commitment, a Federal-State partnership which has existed since the
Reagan administration. I thank the gentleman and welcome his
consideration.
I yield to the chairman.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania who
serves as my partner on the Congressional Steel Caucus, we have other
things in common, including my district abutting the Great Lakes, in my
case Lake Michigan, for rising on this issue on the floor today. It is
an important one.
The gentleman has my commitment that, especially knowing the
challenges facing the Great Lakes region firsthand, that the
subcommittee will make every effort to provide adequate resources to
the Army Corps of Engineers for construction projects and also help the
gentleman provide sufficient resources to the beach nourishment at
Presque Isle.
Mr. ENGLISH. I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Operation and Maintenance

For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and
care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage
reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related
projects authorized by law, including the construction of
facilities, projects, or features (including islands and
wetlands) to use materials dredged during Federal navigation
maintenance activities; the mitigation of impacts on
shorelines resulting from Federal navigation operation and
maintenance activities; to address the effects of civil works
projects owned or operated by the Corps on federally listed
species; to provide security for infrastructure operated by
the Corps, or operated on its behalf, including
administrative buildings and facilities, and laboratories; to
maintain harbor channels provided by a State, municipality,
or other public agency that serve essential navigation needs
of general commerce where authorized by law; and to conduct
surveys and chart northern and northwestern lakes and
connecting waters, clear channels, and remove obstructions to
commercial navigation, $2,655,241,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $53,585,000 shall be for projects
and activities in Region 1 New England; of which $179,814,000
shall be for projects and activities in Region 2 Mid
Atlantic; of which $367,101,000 shall be for projects and
activities in Region 3 South Atlantic Gulf; of which
$126,907,000 shall be for projects and activities in Region 4
Great Lakes; of which $342,354,000 shall be for projects and
activities in Region 5 Ohio; of which $25,721,000 shall be
for projects and activities in Region 6 Tennessee; of which
$251,630,000 shall be for projects and activities in Region 7
Upper Mississippi; of which $166,946,000 shall be for
projects and activities in Region 8 Lower Mississippi; of
which $3,159,000 shall be for projects and activities in
Region 9 Souris-Red-Rainy; of which $162,352,000 shall be for
projects and activities in Region 10 Missouri; of which
$213,500,000 shall be for projects and activities in Region
11 Arkansas-White-Red; of which $185,668,000 shall be for
projects and activities in Region 12 Texas-Gulf; of which
$30,812,000 shall be for projects and activities in Region 13
Rio Grande; of which $57,000 shall be for projects and
activities in Region 14 Upper Colorado; of which $3,967,000
shall be for projects and activities in Region 15 Lower
Colorado; of which $819,000 shall be for

[[Page H6690]]

projects and activities in Region 16 Great Basin; of which
$286,031,000 shall be for projects and activities in Region
17 Pacific Northwest; of which $125,998,000 shall be for
projects and activities in Region 18 California; of which
$26,811,000 shall be for projects and activities in Region 19
Alaska; of which $872,000 shall be for projects and
activities in Region 20 Hawaii; of which such sums as are
necessary to cover the Federal share of eligible operations
and maintenance shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund; of which such sums as become available in the
special account for the Corps established by the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)),
shall be used for resource protection, research,
interpretation, and maintenance activities under this heading
related to resource projection in areas operated by the Corps
at which outdoor recreation is available; and of which such
sums as become available pursuant to section 217 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996, shall be used to cover the
cost of operation and maintenance of the dredged material
disposal facilities for which such fees have been collected.

Amendment No. 25 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. 25 offered by Mr. Westmoreland:
Page 5, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $184,241,000)''.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply strikes
$184,241,000 from operations and maintenance to the Corps.
The amendment would save $184 million, reducing the account from
$2.655 billion to $2.471 billion. The account was funded at $1.97
billion in fiscal year 2007. The bill increases this amount by 34
percent over last year's funding level and the amendment would limit
this increase to 25 percent. While I may feel this is still too much
money, it at least brings some type of accountance that we would want
to increase this 34 percent in 1 year.
Mr. Chairman, I think as already testified today by many Members in
talking about the bureaucracy, the red tape, the problems in
prioritized spending, the lack of accountability, where better to make
a difference and to make a change and to spend something than in the
maintenance and operation of this agency.
We heard from the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Klein, talk about the
problems that he had with regulations, and I know that Florida has a
lot of different water problems and a lot of different Corps' interests
down there.
I was pleased to hear Chairman Visclosky in his comments about
bringing accountability to the Corps and bringing about accountability
on this spending that seems to be run away. I really enjoyed talking to
the ranking member about some of these problems that he has been
addressing over the past years as chairman of this committee and how
accountability needs to be brought to the attention of Members.
I don't know if I have mentioned it before, but this appropriations
bill is $1.1 billion over the President's request. I don't know if I
have mentioned it before, but there has been at least $105 billion in
new Federal spending over the next 5 years that has been authorized by
the new majority in this House, the Democratic leadership. And I don't
know if I have mentioned it or not, but we have enacted the largest tax
increase in American history.
This Democratic budget, and I don't know if I have mentioned this
before or not, allows for $23 billion in new spending over that of the
President's request.
And I want to just make a couple of other comments. Mr. Ryan had
mentioned economic development. I just want to say that 6 years ago the
Dow was at 10,690. Today it is at 13,632. That is a pretty nice
increase, seeing how it came on the heels of 9/11, and I think and I
believe Mr. Ryan quoted the fact that 7.8 million new jobs since this
economic development tax cut legislation has gone into effect. That's
more than Europe and Japan combined.
The President's policies, economic policies, have been working. And
whether we agree with the amount of money that he has spent or not, the
economic policies are working and tax cuts do work.
And so I would ask that we would send a message to the American
taxpayers that we want to cut $184 million out of this bill that is
already bloated, over $1.1 billion. And I think we also want to send a
message to some of these departments that we are going to hold you
accountable and we are going to make sure that you are responsible for
the way you spend money and that you are accountable to this Congress,
because we are directly accountable to the people who elect us to this
position.
So I ask Members to support this amendment and keep in mind that last
year it was $1.9 billion, that this year the President's request was
$2.4 billion, and the proposal is for $2.6 billion.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I wish to speak in support of the Westmoreland amendment. I think it
does a good job of bringing spending to more reasonable levels.
But I would like to speak about the broader issue. Not only does this
particular appropriation bill increase spending by $1.1 billion above
the President's request, which is in excess of last year by double the
rate of inflation, it is part of a broader appropriations effort to
spend $23 billion above the President's request and 9 percent increase
from this year versus last year, triple the rate of inflation.
Here is the problem with all these bills that spend all this extra
money: This puts the taxpayer on a collision course with higher taxes.
Because the budget resolution which we are now operating under leads to
the largest tax increase in American history, by passing these large
appropriations bills, $23 billion above the President's request, it
puts us on a course for higher taxes.
Why is this a bad thing, Mr. Chairman? The reason this is such a bad
thing is because these tax cuts, the tax relief gave us the economic
prosperity we are enjoying today. It gave us the higher economic
revenues that give us the ability to lower the deficit.
When we saw this problem in the economy in 2001 and 2003, consider
all those problems America was facing, the Enron scandals, the dot-com
bubble had burst, 9/11 happened, and we went into a recession.
What did Congress do at that time? Congress moved aggressively and
swiftly to cut taxes, to cut tax rates on entrepreneurs, on small
businesses, on corporations investing back in their businesses, on
families and on taxpayers and working families.
What happened after that? Well, we created 7.9 million new jobs.
Think of the fact that the eight quarters before tax cuts occurred, we
had eight quarters of negative business investment. After that, we have
had unprecedented business investment.
Think of the fact that we have averaged a job loss of 219,000 jobs
per month before those tax cuts and now we are averaging almost 165,000
new jobs per month since those tax cuts.

{time} 1345

Think of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that when the Enron bubble came and
the dot-com bubble burst, people lost a lot of their savings when the
market went down. Well, now the market is at an all-time high, and it
is because of these tax cuts.
And so when we bring bills to the floor that promise all of this new
spending, when we bring bills to the floor that spend $23 billion above
the President's request, when we pass a budget that proposes 23 new
slush funds to spend 190 billion more dollars in spending on top of
those tax increases, this is a recipe for higher taxes.
So, you see, Mr. Chairman, what is coming through here on the floor,
bill after bill, appropriation bill after appropriation bill, is more
spending, higher spending, which leads to higher taxes. The fact is in
just the month of July, this majority is proposing to bring two reserve
funds that will alone promise to spend $70 billion, $20 billion in the
farm bill and $50 billion on the SCHIP reauthorization. Where are they
going to get that money from? Higher taxes.
So it's important that amendments like the Westmoreland amendment
pass so that we can bring restraint to our spending levels. It is
important that we don't pass these bloated appropriation bills that
spend two to three times the rate of inflation, because that's two to
three times the rate of our taxpayers', our constituents', ability to
pay for these bills. And when we go on this collision course with all
this new spending, $110 billion of more

[[Page H6691]]

spending this year alone in just discretionary spending versus last
year, $190 billion in new spending proposals, in mandatory spending on
these reserve funds, that puts the taxpayer on a collision course with
higher taxes and that brings true this promise of the largest tax
increase in American history which was passed by this majority in their
budget resolution.
That is why we should not be passing these overinflated appropriation
bills, and that is why we should be voting ``aye'' in favor of this
Westmoreland amendment.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would like to associate myself with the comments of the ranking
member of the Budget Committee. What is of great concern here and why
once again I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Westmoreland) for these series of amendments to at a minimum look at
various spending levels and try to at least keep to the President's
level, which so many of us already consider to be overinflated,
particularly when we look at the fact of how much more the Federal
budget has grown over the family budget. Since I have been on the face
of the planet, the Federal budget has outgrown the family budget by a
factor of about five to one. This cannot continue.
And so the gentleman from Georgia offers several amendments, all that
would at least put us on the path to avoid the Presidential veto and
spend less than what the new Democrat majority, tax-and-spend majority,
wants to do.
Again, I think it's very important that we focus on the fact that
this is part of a larger plan that we see unveiled in the budget
resolution. This is our third appropriations bill that puts us on the
course to spend the funds that will arise from this single largest tax
increase in American history.
Mr. Chairman, for all those who are watching the proceedings of the
House today, it might be interesting to note for them that the last
time the Democrats had the majority, they enacted the single largest
tax increase in American history. So they are at least consistent in
what they are trying to do. The big debate in Washington is whether you
want to tax more and spend more or whether you want to try to constrain
the growth of the Federal budget to where the family budget can
actually afford it.
I have heard other speakers rise and somehow point the finger at
Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility. I must admit on occasion that
perhaps is correct, but, Mr. Chairman, since I have been here and since
I look in the rearview mirror, every time the Republicans have brought
a budget to the floor, the Democrats have brought even a larger budget
to the floor. They have decried the prescription drug benefit program
of the Republicans for being overly expensive, but their alternative
cost even more. And now already in just the first 6 months of this
110th Congress, we have the Democrats wanting to increase nondefense
appropriations by $23 billion of taxpayer money, we should never forget
that it's the taxpayers' money, above what we spent in 2007. They
already added $6 billion to the omnibus spending bill at the first of
this Congress. They added $17 billion in nonemergency supplemental
spending to the bill that would support our troops in harm's way; but
as we notice, as we read the fine print, we discovered it included
spinach and peanuts and shrimp and everything else. And now we also
understand that the Democrat majority has provided new spending on top
of the old spending, $105 billion over 5 years.
What the Republicans are trying to do is keep the tax relief that
Americans have already been provided, keep it alive, make it permanent.
Democrats say that we're not trying to increase taxes on the American
people, although in their budget they have the single largest tax
increase in American history, they just say, well, we're just going to
let this tax relief expire. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you're a hardworking
individual in the Fifth District of Texas and you make the same amount
of money this year that you made last year and your tax bill goes up,
now, that may be called in Washington, DC. letting tax relief expire, I
can assure you that is a tax increase on hardworking people in the
Fifth District of Texas and all over America.
That's why when this bill comes to the floor, and I know there are
many worthy programs in this bill, but we can never forget the worthy
energy bills that are in the family budget and the worthy water bills
that are in the family budget, and you cannot fund the Federal budget
without taking money from the family budget. That's why again one
modest step would be to vote for this amendment from the gentleman from
Georgia, and I once again want to commend him for his leadership on
fiscal responsibility in this body.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment
and would note that the gentleman from Wisconsin in his earlier remarks
used the term ``slush fund.'' I would note that a slush fund connotes a
fund raised by a group for corrupt practices as bribery or graft. I'm
certain that the gentleman didn't mean to imply that.
Slush fund can also mean money once raised by the sale of garbage
from a warship to buy small items of luxury for the crew. I'm sure the
gentleman didn't mean that, either.
A slush fund can also mean a fund used by a group of office workers
for entertainment, but I don't think the gentleman meant that.
A slush fund could also be a fund raised for undesignated purposes. I
would not be so presumptuous as to speak for the gentleman from
Wisconsin, but I assume that was the import of his remarks, and in this
case that would also be an incorrect assertion.
The subcommittee worked very hard for the first 6 months of this year
to assess what the investment needs are for the United States of
America, its citizens and its economic future. As I have mentioned
earlier, and we had graphics to support the assertion, we have an aging
infrastructure in the United States of America. Anyone who is on the
roads, anyone who travels by air, anyone who travels by rail, anyone
who travels on water understands that. And today we are particularly
concerned about the aging water infrastructure.
I for one, and I believe all of the members of the subcommittee, am
very concerned that much of the infrastructure in place as far as
operation and maintenance is past its designed life. That pertains to
almost half of the locks and dams in this country. We have not dredged
many of our harbors, whether they be for recreation, which is an
economic purpose as well, or for commerce to their authorized depths,
let alone to the depths needed to ensure that they can operate
effectively and cost efficiently, and this work must be done.
What we have created here is an investment fund for operation and
maintenance, and I for one am proud that we have increased in that
account more moneys to invest in the economic prosperity of our
country, whether it pertain to navigation channels, locks and dams, or
other water infrastructure.
I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in opposition to the amendment to reduce funding for the Corps
of Engineers operation and maintenance account. I confess that I don't
understand this amendment beyond its superficial attempt to reduce
bottom-line spending. This country has already expended billions of
dollars in our water resources infrastructure. Much of that
infrastructure is quite old and needs major rehab. I would invite any
of the Members around that want to go and look, go look at the dams and
the locks and the rivers that we have and look at the aging
infrastructure that is there.
As any responsible homeowner knows, much of critical maintenance is
penny-wise and pound-foolish if you put it off. The same maxim applies
to our Nation's water resources infrastructure, though with a much
larger role at stake.
And if we get it wrong, much more than just dollars are at stake. A
large part of the failures that caused such a devastating loss of life
and property in New Orleans came from inadequately maintained flood
control projects. We cannot afford to make this mistake again.

[[Page H6692]]

Even the President said we have got to increase O&M. The President
dramatically increased O&M. What I hear from everybody here is, well,
they're always right down there. Well, they're not always right down
there. They have never put the right amounts in this bill to begin with
when it comes to energy and water, especially the water side.
So I oppose this amendment. Cutting funding for operation and
maintenance for the Corps of Engineers is foolish and irresponsible at
this time.
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:

Regulatory Program

For expenses necessary for the administration of laws
pertaining to the regulation of navigable waters and
wetlands, $180,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites
resulting from work performed as part of the Nation's early
atomic energy program, $130,000,000, to remain available
until expended.

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

For expenses necessary to prepare for flood, hurricane, and
other natural disasters and support emergency operations,
repairs, and other activities in response to such natural
disasters, as authorized by law, $40,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

Expenses

For expenses necessary for general administration and
related functions of the civil works program in the
headquarters of the Corps, the offices of the Division
Engineers, the Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity,
the Institute for Water Resources, the Engineering Research
and Development Center, and the Finance Center, $171,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That no part of
any other appropriation provided in this title shall be
available to fund the civil works activities of the Office of
the Chief of Engineers or the civil works executive direction
and management activities of the offices of the Division
Engineers.

Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

For expenses necessary for the Office of Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), as authorized by 10
U.S.C. 3016(b)(3), $6,000,000.

Administrative Provision

Appropriations in this title shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses (not to exceed
$5,000); and during the current fiscal year the Revolving
Fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available for purchase
(not to exceed 100 for replacement only) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles.

General Provisions, Corps of Engineers--Civil

Sec. 101. (a) Except as provided under subsection (b), none
of the funds provided under this title shall be available for
obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds
that--
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted by this Act;
(4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a
specific program, project, or activity by this Act; or
(5) increases or reduces funds for any program, project, or
activity by more than $2,000,000 or 25 percent, whichever is
less;
(b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or
activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948; section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946;
section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954; section 107 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960; section 103 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1962; section 111 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1968; section 1135 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986; section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996; sections 204 and 207 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992; or section 933 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986.
Sec. 102. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to award any continuing contract or make
modifications to any existing continuing contract that
commits an amount for a project in excess of the amounts
appropriated for that project that remain unobligated, except
that such amounts may include any funds that have been made
available through reprogramming to that project pursuant to
section 101 of this Act.
Sec. 103. (a) None of the funds provided in this Act shall
be available for operation and maritime maintenance of the
hopper dredge McFarland.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to funds required for
the decommissioning of the vessel.
Sec. 104. The Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is directed to reduce by 35 percent the
full-time employees at the Sacramento District Regulatory
Division office of the Corps of Engineers.
Sec. 105. None of the funds appropriated in this Act or any
other Act may be used to conduct a public-private competition
or direct conversion under the OMB Circular A-76 or any other
administrative regulation, directive, or policy for any Corps
of Engineers program, project or activity.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Sessions

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

Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Sessions:
Strike section 105.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 105 of
this legislation which as drafted would prevent the funds spent by this
bill from being used to conduct public-private competitions or to
direct A-76 conversions for any Army Corps of Engineers program,
project, or activity.
This underlying language would present an enormous setback for
competition in government sourcing, costing the Federal Government
millions of dollars a year by preventing private sector contracting in
the Army Corps of Engineers for everything from janitorial and food
services to the engineering and design of locks and dams which private
sector contractors have done competitively for years at the Federal,
State, and local levels.

{time} 1400

While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to public
sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for
Federal agencies because these agencies will have less money to spend
on their core missions if the opportunity to use competition and
private sector efficiencies is taken away from them.
In 2006, Federal agencies competed only 1.7 percent of their
commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of
the entire civilian workforce. This very small use of competition for
services is expected to generate savings of $1.3 billion over the next
5-10 years.
Competitions completed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7
billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 5-10 years. This means
that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every dollar
spent on competition, with an annualized expected savings of more than
$1 billion.
At the Corps, in 2006 three public/private competitions were
competed, involving IT support, financial services, and public works.
The largest of these, dealing with IT support services, has a
projected savings of $960 million over a 6-year period. By introducing
competition and leveraging the government's size to reduce equipment
maintenance and replacement, the government will now be able to save
almost $1 billion, but without my amendment, similar future efforts
will be impossible.
Mr. Chairman, in this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal
spending, Congress should be looking to use all of the tools it can to
find taxpayer savings and to reduce the cost of services that very
easily can be found in the Yellow Pages.
I insert into the Record at this point a letter of support for this
amendment from the American Society of Civil Engineers and a letter of
support for the amendment from the Council on Federal Procurement of
Architectural and Engineering Services.

American Society

of Civil Engineers,

Washington, DC, June 19, 2007.
Hon. Pete Sessions,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Sessions: The American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) is writing to support your amendment to H.R.
2641 that would strike language prohibiting the U.S. Army
Corps of engineers from conducting any public-private
competition or direct conversion under OMB Circular A-76.
ASCE believes that section 105 of the bill as reported
effectively would stop the USACE from employing engineers in
the private sector. Such a provision is contrary to sound
public policy. We think federal, state,

[[Page H6693]]

and local government agencies responsible for major civil
engineering works must maintain professional engineering
expertise within their organizations by employing civil
engineers and providing for their professional development.
Nevertheless, public sector engineering projects that can be
accomplished more efficiently by private engineering firms
should be contracted out with proper oversight by the public
agency. The ratio of in-house engineering to contracted
engineering services should be based upon an assessment of
the agency's continuing project and policy requirements
rather than on rigid rules or percentages fixed by
legislation or regulation. We urge all Members to vote
``yes'' on the Sessions amendment to strike section 105 from
H.R. 2641.
If ASCE can be of further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact me or Michael Charles.
Sincerely yours,
Brian Pallasch,
Director of Government Relations.
____

Reston, VA,

June 19, 2007.
Hon. Pete Sessions,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Sessions: The Council on Federal
Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services
(COFPAES) is a coalition of the nation's design
professionals. Our combined membership of over 1000,000
individual practitioners from the private sector and public
service are part of our member organizations--American
Congress on Surveying and Mapping, American Institute of
Architects, American Society of Civil Engineers, Management
Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS),
and National Society of Professional Engineers.
COFPAES strongly supports your amendment to H.R. 2641 the
Energy and Water Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. We
oppose the language currently in the bill that would
effectively prohibit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from
contracting with the private sector.
COFPAES has long advocated a balance between the in-house
capabilities of the Corps of Engineers and contracting with
firms in the private sector. We believe the language in H.R.
2641 would prohibit achieving such a balance. We believe
there is the need for a core, in-house capability in the
Corps, and utilization of the professional expertise in the
private AlE community.
Current law, 33 U.S.C. 622 and 33 U.S.C. 624, already
protect both the taxpayer and Corps employees. Further
restrictions on use of the private sector are not necessary,
and indeed, would inhibit the ability of the Corps to utilize
private sector capabilities that the Corps needs.
We urge the House to approve your amendment and we thank
you for your leadership on this important issue.
Sincerely,
John M. Palatiello,
COFPAES Administrator.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense
taxpayer-first amendment and to oppose the underlying provisions to
benefit public sector union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition
in the Army Corps of Engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment of the gentleman from Texas?
Does a Member seek time regarding the amendment of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
First I'm heartened that nobody has risen to oppose the amendment.
I've heard many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in a
different context criticize the administration for not always having
what they considered to be a sufficient competitive bidding process on
contracts, and so I'm a little curious how this language ended up in
the bill in the first place. But why wouldn't we want more competition?
Again, after our colleagues on the other side of the aisle helped put
in place the single largest tax increase in American history, and then
start to spend that money in our third appropriations bill that will
again grow government way beyond the rate of inflation, we had better
look for savings everyplace we can find it.
How can you criticize the administration for no-bid contracts, and
then here's an opportunity here for competitive bidding, to somehow
turn it down? So I don't know why this language is in the bill in the
first place, but I want to congratulate and commend the gentleman from
Texas for his amendment.
It has, I think, the potential to save the poor, beleaguered taxpayer
millions, if not billions, of dollars. Is there anything not more
ingrained in the American character than competition? We ought to try
to make these contracts as competitive as possible.
Again, we have to put this whole piece of legislation in context.
It's the third appropriations bill arising from a budget resolution
that calls for the single largest tax increase in American history,
approximately $3,000 of increased taxes for hardworking American
families as they try to meet their education needs, as they try to meet
their health care needs, as they try to meet their housing needs.
So I know there's a number of good programs that are contained within
this legislation. In many respects, we're not having a debate today
about how much money we're going to spend. We are debating who's going
to do the spending, and there are many of us on the floor today who
want to make sure that American families get to do more of that
spending.
We continue to kick this can down the road. It's simply unfair to
place such a tax burden on the American people. The average American
family already pays $22,000 a year combined in Federal taxes, and now
as the Democrat majority is promising to impose an additional $3,000 a
year in taxes, and then, even worse, because their budget resolution
from which this appropriation bill follows is silent on the issue of
what to do with out-of-control entitlement spending, which is putting
our sons and daughters, our grandchildren, on automatic pilot to have
their taxes doubled so they will never be able to afford their own
homes, send their kids to college, start their own business. As the
Comptroller General said, and I paraphrase, we are on the verge of
being the first generation in American history to leave the next
generation with a lower standard of living.
Now, I wish there was a lot more that we could do today within this
piece of legislation, but at least by adopting the amendment of the
gentleman from Texas, we will take a few small steps in doing what
every other American considers to be common sense, and that is to
ensure a maximum of competitive bidding, we would take at least a few
small steps towards trying to save the American people from this
increased tax burden that, again, subtracts from their dreams of their
first home, their dreams of launching a small business.
This is all part, again, of a budget that imposes the single largest
tax increase on the American people in history. After trying to spend
an additional $23 billion over the level spent last year, $6 billion
that was added to the omnibus, $17 billion added to the war
supplemental in nonemergency spending, the Democrat majority now is
going to allow unlimited emergency spending, giving Members practically
the ability to rubber-stamp anything with ``emergency.'' And not only
does their budget not do anything to reform entitlement spending, it
creates reserve funds that promises more entitlement spending, Mr.
Chairman, to make the problem even worse.
So we should all adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Texas. I
applaud his leadership. It's a small step, a commonsense step to try to
save the family budget from the Federal budget.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment because I believe
the actions we have taken in the subcommittee will save the American
taxpayers' money.
I would first note that all A-76 studies performed by the Corps of
Engineers have been won by Corps employees. So the first question is:
Why do it?
The Corps is working under also an arbitrary numerical quota to
review certain numbers of jobs in certain time periods without research
and analysis. It would suggest that this is an arbitrary requirement
put into place by the Office of Management and Budget, and there is a
doubt, at least in this Member's mind, that it has been subjected to
analysis at OMB.
I also believe that historically there has been opposition in this
body to privatization. That has been bipartisan. I would point out that
from a monetary standpoint, that the cost of these studies often
exceeds the benefits; and of those functions that are easily contracted
out, the remainder are difficult to separate into contractible and
governmental function groups.
The fact is that the committee recommendation allows the Corps to
continue with high-performing organization studies which follow the
same study process, with similar results,

[[Page H6694]]

without incurring the additional time and costs associated with
contracting competitions.
So what we would want to do is to use those high-performing
organization studies, apply less cost to the taxpayers and to move this
process along. I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I was compelled to come and talk just a little bit about this
amendment, which I commend my friend from Texas for offering, because
I've been surprised at the rapidity with which the new majority has
regained their old stripes that they lost 12-plus years ago.
We were sitting in committee the other day and marking or finishing
the prospects of a bill that we're passing out of the Education
Committee, and it turns out that there was more estimated revenue that
came into the Federal Government and was eligible for appropriation by
the committee. And so the majority party, within very short order,
stated that they had found hundreds of millions of new dollars and they
were offering an amendment to recognize that, in fact, they had found
hundreds of millions of new dollars; and then, within seconds,
appropriated or authorized the spending of the hundreds of millions of
new dollars.
So I was somewhat bemused by that and made the comment at the time
that I was pleased that they had found the hundreds of millions of new
dollars; I was somewhat surprised that they had spent it so rapidly.
And so I would draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that an
issue, a process by which the Federal Government has been utilizing to
save hundreds of millions of dollars and, yes, billions of dollars, as
stated by the gentleman from Texas, that of providing for competitive
bidding, is an appropriate process. It's an appropriate process for our
Federal Government to use. It's a responsible process so that we may
spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars wisely. And so I'm distressed that
this bill would include a section that would preclude competitive
bidding.
As everyone knows and understands kind of inherently, there are many,
many things that the private sector can do much more reasonably and
responsibly and efficiently and without significant expenditure of
resources than can the public sector. And so it just makes no sense to
me, and certainly no sense to my constituents back in the Sixth
District of Georgia, that we would adopt a new measure that would
provide that we ought not have competitive bidding.
But I think it points out a significant distinction, a difference
between the two parties. The minority party believes that it's
appropriate to have competitive bidding, that it's appropriate to
utilize the full robust nature of the private sector whenever possible,
in some instances it's not possible, but whenever possible in order to
save hard-earned taxpayer money.
The majority party apparently believes, given that this is included
in the bill, that that's not an appropriate concern of the Federal
Government, that we ought not be looking for all efficiencies possible,
and I think that's an appropriate distinction to draw.
I think it's a conclusion that, obviously, Mr. Chairman, the American
people will draw given this provision in the bill. It's a distinction
that I would suggest the American people weren't aware of when they
went to the polls last November. It's a distinction I do believe,
however, they will be paying attention to as future elections arise.
But I just want to commend my friend from Texas for this remarkably
commonsense amendment, for appropriately reviewing the legislation and
identifying those areas where, in fact, savings could occur; and part
of our responsibility certainly is providing money for the necessary
activities of the Federal Government, but it's also part of our
responsibility to be as prudent as we can with hard-earned taxpayer
money.
I also want to commend my other friend from Texas, who was here just
before me, talking about the importance of providing the distinction in
the majority party already passing a budget that has the largest tax
increase in the history of our Nation.

{time} 1415

That, again, is evidence of their return to the previous stripes that
they had 12-plus years ago.
I am pleased to join my colleague from Texas in this commonsense,
wise, fiscally prudent, and fiscally responsible amendment.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor to speak in favor of this very
important amendment.
Serving on the Budget Committee, as I have the honor and privilege of
doing, I see the relevance of addressing such an amendment as this,
that goes to the very heart of the principles that Republicans bring to
the handling of the budget.
As the previous gentleman just ended his remarks, I will begin mine.
What we have seen in the last several weeks with regard to the
legislation that is coming down, what I have seen as a member of the
Budget Committee, gives us, this House, the largest tax increase in
U.S. history, a breaking of the promises under rules that have been
made during the past campaign, the establishment, which we were able to
defeat this past week, of the creation of slush funds to hide some of
those dollars going forward.
Why is all of that relevant to the amendment that is here before us?
From a very practical purpose, when a family or a small business sets
about to handle its daily budget, how do they do so? They do so from a
logical perspective in deciding what is in the best interest of that
family as far as the purchases they make, or when a business sets out
to create its budget for the year ahead and the purchases that it will
be required to make.
How does it do so? It does so on a logical, regional basis. It looks
out at all the purviews and the parameters of the opportunities before
them, and then decides what is best for their family or for their
business.
You can say a family does a competitive bidding process, although the
average family probably doesn't think of it that way. When they do
their shopping from grocery store to grocery store, or from Wal-Mart to
Target or to Kmart or wherever else, they are, in fact, engaging in a
competitive business process, business nature, if you will.
When a business does it, a small business, which is the backbone of
the American economy, they engage in a competitive business bidding
process as well. They know what they need in order for their business
to survive in this year and this quarter and the years ahead. They know
what the parameters are and the order that they must meet. They will go
out and about and engage in a competition, if you will, between the
options that are out there before them and decide which one works best
for them, which is at the best price, which is the most economical and
which is the most efficient.
If the family budget can make these decisions, if the small
businesses of this country can make those decisions, then I think it's
incumbent upon us here in this House, this House of the people, to
make, likewise, those decisions in the same manner as well. As the
gentleman from Texas often says, the focus should be on the family
budget and not on the Federal budget.
Likewise, when it comes to the way we handle the taxpayers' dollars,
the focus should be on the same way the family and the small business
handle their budget and their procurement, instead of the role and the
methods we have done in the past.
That's why I come to the floor this afternoon in support of the other
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), his amendment today. Because
that's simply what this amendment will do, will strike section 105 from
the bill and that is the section which prohibits funds from being used
under OMB's circular 876, which is basically the outsourcing proposed
process: ``to process or approve a competition with regard to the Army
Corps of Engineers.''
By striking this provision, OMB would be allowed to use a competitive
process in conducting private-public competition to determine who, the
government agency or a private business, performs certain activities.
Just think for a moment, if we were to engage in such activities, how
much further the hard-earned tax dollar of the American

[[Page H6695]]

public could go in this House, in this American economy that we have.
Just think how many more of these necessary programs that we are called
upon to support could be engaged in and provided.
Now, I come from the great State of New Jersey, a State that
oftentimes has to look to the core and to the Federal Government for
various programs to provide for the health and safety of the citizens
of not only my district but my State as well.
Think for a moment how much further we would be able to go in
providing these services to the State in my district and my county, and
through the State of New Jersey as well. Think of how much further we
could go if we could be able to provide these services in a more
economical and efficient basis.
The amendment before us does that. It will allow for the operation of
the Federal Government to engage itself the same way as a small
business does, the same way as a family budget does.
Closing then, bringing this all back to my opening comments with
regard to what we have seen at the beginning of the process with the
Democrat budget and what we have seen in the past several weeks with
regard to the largest tax increase for the American family in U.S.
history, what this amendment will do is drive down the pressure on this
government to raise taxes on the backs of American families.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak on this amendment. I was
somewhat encouraged by the silence on the other side of the aisle when
it originally came out.
But then when the majority party indicated that they are going to
oppose this amendment, I have to stand up and say just, at least, one
thing. We are going to have some amendment debates later today about
how much money to spend on various programs and how much to spend on
various things and how much to spend overall on this bill, whether we
should be spending more of the taxpayers' money on things or less of
the taxpayers' money on things.
We are going to have that debate today and tomorrow and the next day,
and there are certainly disagreements between the majority side and the
minority side on those issues as to whether we should tax people more
and spend their money or tax people less and let them spend their own
money.
But, interestingly, this amendment isn't about that. This amendment
doesn't change the funding in the bill. It simply says we ought to have
a mechanism to make the money that's there go farther.
I really don't understand why my Democratic colleagues would have
some ideological objection to that. If we are going to spend a certain
amount of money on a program, regardless of what that program does,
couldn't we all agree that we would like it to do as much as it can
with that amount of money?
Certainly, if we allow private contractors, or contractors, the
opportunity to say, hey, we can do this thing for less money, and we
can do the same thing, and the agency determines that it's the same
thing for less money, wouldn't we want them to do that?
This, actually, is not about spending less money. We will get to that
later. But this is about having the money we spend go farther.
I mean, it's just like for people, Mr. Chairman, that are watching at
home, imagining that, well, I am going to go out and, you know, get dry
cleaning today, but I don't care how much it costs, and I don't care if
the place next door does it cheaper, and they are every bit as good or
better. I don't care, I am going to use the more expensive place
because we are not going to make competition.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Would the gentleman yield? I have an inquiry of the
Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Pomeroy). Does the gentleman from California
yield to the gentleman?
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I will yield.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Is it correct to reference people watching House
proceedings on television, or are we not supposed to do that?
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I believe that I clearly
said, ``Mr. Chairman, people who see this may wonder.''
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the
Chair.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I did, I believe. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, whether it's you, or anyone in this room or whoever, we
have money that we spend on things, and we like to shop to see if we
are getting the best price, getting the same product or as good a
product or a better product for the best price. That's what this
amendment says, is that we're going to allow people to shop or get the
better product for the best price.
Mr. Chairman, it is beyond me why the majority party would object to
something so sensible, so reasonable in being a steward of the
taxpayers' dollars.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Serrano) assumed the chair.

____________________