[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.

                          ____________________