[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6695-H6709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2008
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
Central Utah Project Completion Account
For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act (titles II through VI of Public Law
102-575), $41,380,000, to remain available until expended, of
which $976,000 shall be deposited into the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Account for use by the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.
In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying
out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the
Interior, $1,620,000, to remain available until expended.
Bureau of Reclamation
The following appropriations shall be expended to execute
authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and Related Resources
(including transfers of funds)
For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of
reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling
related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and
related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with,
State and local governments, federally recognized Indian
tribes, and others, $871,197,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $57,615,000 shall be available for
transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and
$26,825,000 shall be available for transfer to the Lower
Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which such amounts
as may be necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam
Fund; of which not more than $500,000 is for high priority
projects which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation
Corps, as authorized by section 106 of Public Law 91-378 (16
U.S.C. 1706): Provided, That such transfers may be increased
or decreased within the overall appropriation under this
heading: Provided further, That of the total appropriated,
the amount for program activities that can be financed by the
Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of Reclamation special fee
account established by section 4(i) of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)) shall be
derived from that Fund or account: Provided further, That
funds contributed under the Act of March 4, 1921 (43 U.S.C.
395) are available until expended for the purposes for which
contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced under the
Act of January 12, 1927 (43
[[Page H6696]]
U.S.C. 397a) shall be credited to this account and are
available until expended for the same purposes as the sums
appropriated under this heading.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hensarling
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
Page 11, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $55,000,000)''.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment, as some previous
amendments have, attempts to make a very, very modest step towards
saving the family budget from the single largest tax increase in
American history.
Specifically, over the requested level or the level in the bill, this
would reduce funding for Interior's Water and Related Resources account
to the President's request from roughly $871 million to $816 million,
representing a $55 million savings to the American taxpayer. This
account has been a traditionally earmarked account for certain water
restoration activities in 17 Western States.
The bill's current funding level represents a 6.7 percent increase
over the President's request. Again, I am sure this account funds many
worthy projects.
But we need, I believe, a number of us believe we need a road map to
try to bring fiscal sanity to the House in an appropriations bill that
is already increasing spending twice the rate of inflation. So now we
are having a debate over $816 million, as proposed by the
administration, which I am sure many in this body might think is an
overly large number when we recognize that money is coming from
hardworking American taxpayers, but a difference of $816 million versus
$871 million.
Again, as the majority in their budget resolution enacts the single
largest tax increase in American history, they are asking American
families to somehow do more with less. Don't we believe that the
Federal Government ought to try to do more with less, and, in this
case, we still have an increase, 6.7 percent increase over the
President's request.
As I have taken to the floor on other occasions during this debate,
we should never, ever forget that although something good can be done
with the taxpayers' dollars in this account, I have no doubt, we have
to remember the hardworking American families back home and how the
single largest tax increase in history, which is funding this third
appropriation bill, still twice the rate of inflation, we have to
remember, we have to remember how this bill impacts them.
I sent out a letter to my constituents asking them how this tax
increase of the Democrat majority would impact them.
{time} 1430
I heard from Bruce in Garland. Garland's a city in my district. He
said, ``In my particular case, an additional $2,200 in taxes would cut
into the finances I used to pay for my son's college education. A
control and reduction of spending is what is needed.''
Again, Mr. Chairman, what we realize is as we plus-up some Federal
account, we are downsizing some family account. In this case, we're
affecting a family's education account.
I heard from Joy in the city of Dallas. I represent the eastern part
of the city of Dallas. She writes, ``I could not pay for a semester of
college for my daughter if I had to send more money to the
government.''
So as this account's getting plussed up by twice the rate of
inflation, here are two individual families, just two out of millions
across America, who are having their education accounts gutted by the
plus-up in this particular bill.
I heard from Linda, also from the city of Garland. ``If we had to pay
an additional $2,200 each year, it would make us have to decide between
food or medicine.''
I've got a whole host of these letters, Mr. Chairman, to remind every
Member in this body that as we talk about all the noble purposes we
have for the American taxpayers' money, they too have noble purposes.
They have health care programs in their family, they have education
programs in their family, they have energy bills and programs in their
family, paying their heating bills, their cooling bills, filling up
their automobile. So certainly we could take one modest step in saving
the taxpayer $55 million and plus-up the water and related resources
account, a traditionally earmarked account. And we had a very vigorous
debate over earmarks here recently, their transparency, their
accountability.
But surely we could agree to hold to the President's level and try to
save the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, the
water and related resources account funds Reclamation's core missions
of delivering water to citizens of this country, to those who till the
soil in our country, and for generating hydropower.
Given the growing need for water supplies in the 17 Western States of
this country, I certainly believe it is critical that the Nation invest
now in water reclamation and reuse projects for the future.
This account also provides very important funds for rural water
supply projects for tribal and rural communities, contributing to
meeting the United States' trust responsibilities to Indian
reservations through the delivery of safe drinking water.
I share the gentleman's concern about health programs in the United
States, and I can't think of anything more important than ensuring that
people in 17 different States of this country have clean water to
drink. And how shortsighted it would be to cut programs that provide
clean drinking water for human health, so that we can spend untold sums
of money on their health care after they get sick. If you want to talk
about something that is penny-wise and pound-foolish, we have found it
this afternoon.
This is a health amendment. If we take these moneys away, we will do
a disservice to the health of the people who live in these regions. As
with the Corps of Engineers, Reclamation's infrastructure is aging, and
it has increasing requirements for proper and adequate maintenance of
its infrastructure.
But 17 States cover a large area and swath of the continent. But I'm
just wondering which citizens in which communities are we going to tell
we just can't help you this year because we might have accepted the
gentleman's amendment. Are we going to tell people in Wichita, Kansas,
the Wichita Cheney program that maybe they're not going to get all of
their money?
Are we going to tell people at Lakehead, Nevada that well, we had to
make a cut of $55 million, and you're just not going to have the
resources you need?
Or people in Oregon for the Crooked River project, are we going to
tell them well, there's just not enough money now?
Are we going to, in the State of Colorado, tell people in Pine River
that we had to make a cut?
In Texas, are we going to tell people for the Canadian River project
that there just wasn't enough money to go around, or at Moon Lake in
the State of Utah that we're sorry, Congress dropped the ball? Or for
the Colombia River Basin project, that somehow there was a shortfall in
us meeting our responsibilities?
The gentleman's correct. This is a health amendment. This is clean
drinking water for people who live in 17 States in the United States of
America provided through infrastructure that is aging. We have a
responsibility to invest in that, and that is why I'm strongly opposed
to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Texas for this
amendment. And let me begin where the gentleman from the other side of
the aisle concluded when he asked the question? What if there is not
enough money to go around?
That is a question that we ask here in Congress in the House all the
time. What if there's not enough money for my pet project to go around?
What if there's not enough money for this earmark to go around?
What if there's not enough money for this brand-new program to go
around?
[[Page H6697]]
But let me suggest to you that there's another variation of that
question that we would be mindful of, and that is the families back at
home that we represent. When the mom and dad sits at their dining room
table at the end of each week with their checkbook out, paying their
bills, be it for the electric bill, some other utility or heating bill,
their rent or their mortgage, their food bill, their health or
education bill for their children, or any other vital bill that that
family has, and the husband looks over to the wife, and they realize
that they have all these stacks of bills in front of them, and they
have more bills than they have money in their checking account, and the
wife asks the husband, what now, because there's not enough money to go
around, what does that family do?
Who does that family turn to when there's not enough money to go
around?
I can tell you where this Congress turns to when we say there's not
enough money to go around. When we say there's not enough money to go
around, what this House has done, or at least in the new budget that
was presented in the Budget Committee which I serve on, by the other
side of the aisle, what the Democrats propose to do is to simply raise
taxes. And as we have seen in the proposed budget from the other side
of the aisle, it is now the largest tax increase in U.S. history, on
the backs of America's families, on the backs of that very same husband
and wife who is sitting there saying to themselves, there's not enough
money to go around to pay our bills, to pay our mortgage, to pay our
health care bills, to send our kids to go to school.
They can't raise taxes on anybody else. They can't go out to their
neighbors and say, we can't afford food this week, we can't afford our
rent this week. We can't afford to send our kids to the colleges we
want to, so we're going to raise taxes on you. They can't do that. But
somehow or other, Members of Congress think when they get elected
around here, that we can do that by raising taxes, the largest tax
increase in U.S. history, that somehow or other that we're entrusted to
do such things and create slush funds and the like.
Well, I stand before you and say that no, that the American public
has sent a message to us, to both sides of the aisle, to Republicans
and Democrats alike. Yes, the Democrats are now in charge, Mr.
Chairman, of this House. And they are so because the American public
spoke this last November, quite candidly, because perhaps the
Republicans weren't listening well enough during that period of time.
But I can tell you this, and those who listen to us on this floor
today, the Republicans are listening very well right now, and the
Democrats are not listening very well. The voters sent us a message in
November and said enough is enough. We have to be concerned about the
family budget sometimes instead of the Federal budget. We have to put
the focus on the moms and dads out there being able to pay their bills
for their kids' health care and the like, instead of always worrying
about ever-increasing budgets on the Federal level.
Now the proposal that is before us to look at would simply look to
save a few million dollars out of a several trillion dollar budget,
something that most Americans, myself included, can't really get our
arms around when you think about how large this budget is. In a way,
it's just a drop in the bucket when it comes to the budgets back here.
But to the budget of the family at home, that's still a lot of money.
The proposal that the good gentleman from Texas proposes here right
now would simply try to rein in spending in such the smallest of ways,
but it would be a good step in the right direction. It would be saying
to the voters from last November, we heard you; we have to put the
focus on the family budget, we're going to try to live within our
means.
And even when we are dealing with important issues, such as the
gentleman from the other side of the aisle raised, whether it's water
resources or the like, we're going to fund those programs. We're going
to take care of those programs, but we're going to do it in an
efficient and a manageable manner, and we're going to do so in a way
that is not a burden on the American family budget any longer because
we have heard you, and we realize that there will never be enough
dollars for every single program that every single Member of Congress
and the Senate come up with. But we are going to prioritize them, put
them in order of importance, put them in an order that are most
significant to the American family, fund those programs to the levels
that are necessary. And the rest, we are going to do just as every
family in America has to do, set limits on what we are going to spend
on, set limits on how much we are going to spend, and live within our
means.
So to the good gentleman, Mr. Hensarling from Texas, I commend you
for your work in trying to have this House live within its means.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield to our distinguished chairman.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman from New York yielding, and
would simply reference the last speaker's assertion about pet projects
and referencing those to the projects that I enumerated in my remarks.
The fact is, I was enumerating projects on page 42 of the committee
report, and 43 on the committee report, and page 44 on the committee
report, and page 45 on the committee report that were submitted by the
President of the United States.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I find the most recent comment of our good friend on
the other side rather amusing, as the President is charged with
executing the policies that this Congress puts in place; and heaven
forbid, that he or whoever might occupy that office, might have certain
priorities that they would want to bring about to, in fact, execute the
policies that have been passed by this Congress.
But be that as it may, I want to commend my good friend from Texas
for bringing this amendment forward. I think that the amendment itself
highlights truly the fallacy of the process that we're under. And that
is, as my good friend from New Jersey just mentioned, that we fail in
this Congress, at least the majority party fails in this Congress to
prioritize spending in a way that passes a test that I believe the
American people would be proud of or be pleased with.
The point isn't, as my good friend from Indiana has stated, the
specifics of the project that he identified. That is not the point of
the debate that we would rise to engage in. The point is that when is
enough enough? When is it that we, as a Federal Government, take hard-
earned tax money out of the pocketbooks and the back pockets of
Americans and say, okay, that's all we need.
Clearly, this new majority has said that we can't get enough. We
can't get enough. And consequently, they have adopted, in this past 6
months, a budget that includes the largest tax increase in the history
of our Nation, the largest tax increase in the history of America.
And I have friends at home who say, well, that wouldn't be so bad if,
in fact, they were solving real problems. But, Mr. Chairman, as you
well know, the challenge of the Federal spending, the challenge of the
budgetary process is the automatic programs, the entitlement programs,
the mandatory programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which
comprise 54, 55 percent of our Federal budget.
And the budget that this new majority passed that included the
largest tax increase in the history of our Nation did nothing, said
nothing about how to reform those programs; how to make certain that
Social Security, which is a program that is challenged to be
charitable, challenged from a process standpoint, to be able to provide
a safety net for those young citizens across our Nation who are in
their 20s and 30s.
{time} 1445
It is a program that will not have those kinds of resources without
structural change, and so the majority party passes a budget with the
largest tax increase in the history of our Nation and says nothing, it
is mute, as it relates to Social Security reform. Mr. Chairman, I don't
think that is what the American people sent us to Washington to do. I
think they sent us to Washington to solve real problems.
As a physician prior to coming to Congress, one of the huge
challenges
[[Page H6698]]
that we face is the provision of health care and health insurance for
our citizens. And, consequently, the other two limbs of the budgetary
challenge that we have, Medicare and Medicaid, huge problems, huge
challenges from a financial standpoint. They require structural change.
However, this majority passed in their budget, again the largest tax
increase in the history of our Nation, nearly $400 billion, and said
nothing, nothing about structural reform to those programs that are
imperative for the healthiness of our Nation.
So when we talk about our concern regarding spending, it is not
necessarily the specifics of a given paragraph within a spending bill.
The specifics are the overall amount of money that we are spending as a
Federal Government and the fact that we are ignoring, this Congress is
ignoring, the true financial challenges that face us as a Nation.
So I rise to commend my friend from Texas for offering an amendment
that I think brings focus to where the debate ought to be, and that is
to challenge each and every Member of this body and each and every
Member of the Senate to make certain that before we end our time here
this fiscal year, to make certain that the budget for fiscal year 2008
is as responsible as it can be, that we address appropriately those
huge financial challenges that we have as a Nation and be much more
responsible with taxpayer money and make certain that we allow
Americans to keep their hard-earned taxpayer money in their back pocket
and in their pocketbooks.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HENSARLING. 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 Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund
For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat
restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (title XXXIV of Public
Law 102-575), $59,122,000, to be derived from such sums as
may be collected in the Central Valley Project Restoration
Fund pursuant to sections 3404(c)(3), 3405(f), and 3407(d) of
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-
575), to remain available until expended: Provided, That the
Bureau of Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the
full amount of the additional mitigation and restoration
payments authorized by section 3407(d) of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available under this heading may be used for the
acquisition or leasing of water for in-stream purposes if the
water is already committed to in-stream purposes by a court
adopted decree or order.
California Bay-Delta Restoration
(including transfer of funds)
For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply,
Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law
108-361), consistent with plans to be approved by the
Secretary of the Interior, $40,750,000, to remain available
until expended, of which such amounts as may be necessary to
carry out such activities may be transferred to appropriate
accounts of other participating Federal agencies to carry out
authorized purposes: Provided, That funds appropriated herein
may be used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED
Program management: Provided further, That the use of any
funds provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for
program-wide management and oversight activities shall be
subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior:
Provided further, That CALFED implementation shall be carried
out in a balanced manner with clear performance measures
demonstrating concurrent progress in achieving the goals and
objectives of the Program: Provided further, That $5,000,000
shall be transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers to carry
out further study and implementation of projects that
contribute to the stability of the levee projects authorized
under section 103(f)(3) of the Water Supply, Reliability,
Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 108-361).
Policy and Administration
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and
related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until expended,
$58,811,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be
available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and
administration expenses: Provided further, That, of the funds
provided under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be transferred
to ``Water and Related Resources'' upon the expiration of the
60-day period following the date of enactment of this Act if,
during such period, the Secretary of the Interior has not
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate the Bureau of Reclamation's
five-year budget plan.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lamborn:
Page 14, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $1,236,000)''.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, as we continue to wade through these
massive and costly spending bills, my commitment to the American
taxpayer remains strong. I signed a pledge to uphold a Presidential
veto of any spending bill that exceeds the President's requested level
of funding. Hopefully, we can contain some of this out-of-control
spending and pass fiscally responsible legislation; but if not, I
intend to honor that pledge.
This appropriations bill would increase spending for energy and water
projects by $1.1 billion more than the President's budget request and
seeks to increase spending by more than $1.3 billion over last year's
fiscal 2007 Energy and Water appropriations bill.
We have an opportunity to demonstrate restraint by reducing the
amount that the government spends, not increasing it. At a time when
the Federal Government faces an $8.8 trillion national debt, we have a
real opportunity to show the American people that we can be fiscally
disciplined and that we will reduce this deficit. Increasing the size
of government or bureaucracy will not help this reduction effort.
My commonsense amendment would simply maintain the Policy and
Administration account under the Bureau of Reclamation at fiscal year
2007 levels, representing a $1.2 million reduction from $58.8 million
to $57.6 million. That is the same as last year's budget. Given that
this funding level was appropriate for last year's budget and our
Nation needs to reduce Federal spending, this commonsense restraint
should be acceptable.
This amendment is not critical of the Bureau of Reclamation or its
employees, who actually help deliver water to parts of my district and
are important to the State of Colorado and to the entire West. It would
simply require the Federal Government to operate the way any deficit-
laden business would. A private sector company experiencing the same
deficits the Federal Government is facing would not increase its
deficit. It would simply cut spending or go out of business. A family
on a tight budget finds ways to go without, and we should explore every
opportunity to be fiscally responsible as well.
This amendment is the first step of many necessary steps enforcing
fiscal discipline and sanity upon the Federal Government and out-of-
control Federal deficit spending. We must restore fiscal discipline and
assure the American people that we are doing whatever is necessary to
reduce our national debt. To do this, we must find commonsense and
innovative new ways to do more with less.
The American people have asked Congress to rein in Federal spending
and tighten its belt. This reasonable amendment does just that, and I
urge its adoption.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor in support of yet another good and
commonsense amendment. Good and common sense because it asks of this
Congress to do the very same thing that any family in America and any
small business in America would do under similar circumstances.
The American public right now is looking at, as we have already seen,
the largest tax increase in U.S. history. And let me just take a
moment, though, before I go into the particulars on this amendment to
explain how that impacts upon the average American family.
There was an article in the New York Times several months ago after
the Democrats proposed their budget, which is inclusive of what we have
here before us, to say how would this, the
[[Page H6699]]
largest tax increase in American history, impact a family of four, the
average American family of four maybe in the Fifth Congressional
District, maybe in Bergen County, which is one of the great counties of
New Jersey that I represent, an average family of four, four
individuals, making around $70,000, which I should point out by no
means in the great State of New Jersey would be considered by most
people an affluent family. That family would see their taxes, because
of this underlying legislation combined with the overall budget, go up
by upwards to $1,500, $1,600 year. That would mean $1,500 or $1,600
more coming to the Federal Treasury into the Federal checkbook as
opposed to being able to stay in the family checkbook. That means
$1,500 or $1,600 more coming down to the Washington bureaucrats as
opposed to being able to remain in the family checkbook on the kitchen
table where Mom and Dad are able to decide should those dollars be
spent on their son's college education, on their daughter's health care
expenses, on their in-laws' necessary expenses that they must share
with, whatever else, to Washington as opposed to the family budget.
Now, the good gentleman from Colorado comes up with an amendment to
try to address that. If we are able to hold the line on overall
spending just as an average family would have to do, we would not see
the need for this, the largest tax increase in American history. And
what does the good gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) do? Well, he
simply says hold the line on spending for, let us say, the bureaucrats,
if you will, all good men and women, I am sure, the people in the
policy and administration account under this bill, under the Bureau of
Reclamation, hold the spending at 2007 levels. By doing so, we will be
saving some money. That will represent a $1.236 million reduction, from
$58.8 million to $57.57 million.
Some of you may say in this grand scheme of things when we are
looking at our Federal budget upwards of almost $3 trillion, saving
$1.2 million is not that much. But the flip side of that argument is if
it really isn't that much of a cut, then it really shouldn't be that
much to bear for the Federal Government. If we are not really not
cutting that much, then the bureaucrats and the rest who have such a
huge budget as it is should not feel the squeeze that much. But all we
are asking them to do, like any other family does, is to live on their
budget for this year.
I ask how many Americans saw their income rise last year by one, two,
two-\1/2\ times the rate of inflation? I can tell you quite candidly
most of the people that I talk to in my district, unfortunately, did
not see their incomes rise that much, but yet that is what we are
asking them to do in the sense of higher taxes to pay for the increase
in spending for the overall budget that we have here.
Let me just conclude in the same way that the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Lamborn) does in his letter. He says, and I think these are the
most poignant words: ``We must restore fiscal discipline and assure the
American people that we are doing whatever is necessary to reduce our
national debt. To do this, we must find both commonsense and innovative
ways to do more with less. The American people have asked Congress to
rein in Federal spending and to tighten its belt. This reasonable
amendment does just that.'' And he asks us all from both sides of the
aisle, Republican and Democrat alike, to join with the gentleman from
Colorado to work to make sure that we do not have the largest tax
increase in American history, to work to make sure that we have a
system that is common sense, efficient, and appropriate on the Federal
level, just as we have asked for the American family at home.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it is amazing. If folks on the other side keep saying
tax increase, they are actually going to believe that there is a tax
increase.
What I notice is that they very rarely mention deficit because when
they do, they leave themselves open for discussion on the deficit. Yes,
there is a deficit and the American people are quickly finding that
out. The deficit was not created in the last less than 6 months that
Democrats have had control of this House. The deficit was created by
taking us into a war that we shouldn't have been involved in where
close to $600 billion has been spent, not to mention the loss of life,
not to mention the fact that when our troops come home over the next
10, 15, 20 years, we will be paying in deficit spending to make up for
medical care and all the needs that I certainly will be supporting for
them.
{time} 1500
Now, it's interesting, Mr. Chairman, how the other side mentions that
this bill spends money. Well, in a way that's redundant because that's
what the Constitution says the Appropriations Committee is supposed to
do. It is supposed to come to the Congress every year and spend
dollars. How much we spend, that's a discussion.
But if there was ever a place where you can justify a modest
increase, it would be when you deal with the energy issues in our
country. There are dollars here, no one is mentioning, for research.
There are dollars here to deal with the energy issue.
Now, every American knows that probably at the center of issues in
this country is the high cost of fuel in this country, whether for
driving or heating our homes. So when you take some of those tax
dollars and you spend them, a very modest amount, on research to see if
there is a way that in the future we can cut out our dependency on
foreign oil, that is a great investment. That is no different than
investing in a college or education for the children. It is the same
kind. But again, we are not going to hear that. What we are going to
hear is this repetition about how money is being spent, and that there
is a tax increase.
I don't remember a tax increase in the 6 months that we have been
here as Democrats. What I do remember that caused a deficit was, one,
the war; and two, that we did have a tax decrease in this country, a
tax cut, we did. But it wasn't for anybody that we know, certainly no
one I know. It was for millionaires and zillionaires, including some of
them who told us that they didn't even want a tax cut. Those are the
people.
So if indeed those tax cuts reach their sunset and die, I guess you
could play with words and say that taxes will go up. Yeah, for somebody
who has $100 million, he or she might pay more taxes later on. But the
working class, the people who are getting help for their education, the
folks that are getting a better deal on energy propositions in the
future, those are the facts, the people that we are looking for. Now,
you want to cut the deficit down? You want to create a situation where
we will spend less money in this country? Stop the war now. Stop
spending another dollar on the war in Iraq.
But it has been forgotten. It's all about tax-and-spend Democrats. My
God, when you hear this, Mr. Chairman, you would think we were in
control for the last 14 years. No, it's 12, 14 years against less than
6 months. And in those 6 months we have spoken to parents about their
kids' education. In those 6 months we've made attempts to bring down
the cost of gasoline. In those 6 months, yes, we gave a minimum wage
increase to the lowest earners in this country. That's what we've done.
And we will be proud of that. You want to cut the deficit that you
created over 12 years? Stop the war now. That's the best way to do it.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
There were so many inaccuracies in that last speech, but there are at
least a couple that I would like to correct relative to taxes, one of
them being that in the last 6 years, the tax reductions that have been
put in place actually reduce taxes for every single American who pays
income taxes, and actually took some people that were paying income
taxes and took them off the tax rolls. And that the Democrats' budget,
which has in fact been passed, unlike the minimum wage increase which
is not actually in the law at this point, but the Democrats' budget
which has in fact been passed has proposed potentially to roll back all
of those tax increases and thereby increase taxes on every single
taxpayer in America.
With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
[[Page H6700]]
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from California.
To put things in perspective for my colleague from New York, it's
true that the war in Iraq has cost $600 billion. That is 7 percent of
the $8.8 trillion total national debt that we have. So we have to also
address the remaining 93 percent of the debt, because the war is 7
percent out of that $8.8 trillion.
So, getting back to this amendment that is before us, I would differ
with my colleague from New York. We are not cutting any research into
energy development. We are cutting the bureaucracy expense. We are
cutting the policy and administration portion of the Bureau of
Reclamation. We are just keeping it to last year's dollar amount. So
the bureaucracy, the administration of the Bureau of Reclamation is
what is being kept to last year's figures. There is no cut going on for
any research development program whatsoever. So I just wanted to make
that correction.
Apparently I haven't won over my colleague from New York yet, but I
would urge everyone else here to adopt this amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman, and I would just
like to amplify what he said, that if in fact what this amendment does
is take spending to last year, then it's not a cut at all. It's not
even a cut of the bureaucracy that you're talking about, it is in fact
making this line or this area of expenditure the same as last year.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I was compelled to come down to just comment about some
of the information that we've heard from the other side regarding
issues not necessarily related to this amendment, because they
broadened the debate significantly to talk about the deficit. And Mr.
Chairman, as you well know, the deficit has been decreasing
significantly for reasons that I would like to touch on a little bit.
They also talked about the issue of the work that they had
accomplished, that this majority had accomplished. And they talk about
decreasing gas prices. Well, in fact, what their gas bill did, Mr.
Chairman, as you recall is to increase taxes on United States oil
companies. Sounds good maybe in some districts, I don't know; mine is
not terribly interested in anybody paying more taxes. But they
increased taxes on United States oil companies. Now that bill sits in
the Senate, thank goodness, because hopefully the Senate will be able
to resolve it and correct it so that the actual policy of this Congress
on gas prices will indeed be to bring them down. It takes greater
responsibility to do that.
If in fact that were to become law, then what we would do under the
direction of this majority party is to decrease the ability for
American oil companies to produce American oil, and we would increase
our reliance and our dependency on foreign oil; not the greatest energy
plan, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest.
They also talked about assisting kids' education, college education.
We have that as a goal, certainly. We think it's appropriate to provide
for greater resources for American citizens to attend higher education.
What does their bill do, though, Mr. Chairman? Again, it sits in the
Senate, so hopefully we will have the Senate correct that.
But what their bill does is to ratchet down very gradually the
interest rate that students pay on loans to go to college and keeps
them at half their current rate for 6 months, Mr. Chairman, and then,
boom, right back up to where they were. Well, Mr. Chairman, that isn't
leadership either.
Now, this chart right here, Mr. Chairman, talks about the increasing
Federal revenue. But this red line here could be jobs, it could be
increasing Federal revenue, it could be economic development. And there
was a remarkable thing that occurred in 2003 that made it so that that
line goes up appropriately. Thank goodness, the American people say.
Appropriately, Federal revenues increase, economic development
increases, jobs increase. And what happened in 2003 was the culmination
of appropriate tax reductions for the American people. And what does
this majority want to do? It wants to take that line back down. Because
what they've done is passed a budget that reverses every single tax
reduction, appropriate tax reduction, for the American people. Mr.
Chairman, that is not the kind of leadership, I don't think, the
American people deserve, nor is it the type of leadership that they
desire.
So, when we broaden this debate, it's appropriate, because the
American people, Mr. Chairman, the American people are watching, and
what they see is a majority party that is terribly interested in making
certain that the American people are taxed to a greater degree so that
they ostensibly have more money to be able to spend on their pet
programs.
My good friend says that it's only folks who make hundreds of
millions of dollars who will have their taxes go up. Well, Mr.
Chairman, that is not the case, as you well know. Taxes will increase
for virtually every single American. Anybody who pays taxes now, under
this new majority if they get their way, will have increased taxes.
That's not the kind of leadership I believe the American people voted
for in November, it is not the kind of leadership that we would
provide, it is not the kind of leadership that the American people
deserve.
So, I am pleased that my good friends on the other side have
broadened the debate because it results in the opportunity to bring
into focus greater clarity to these budget bills, greater clarity to
these appropriations bills, and makes certain that the American people
are paying attention to the kind of leadership that this new majority
is offering, or the lack of leadership they're offering.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield to my friend from New
Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I think it is a significant point that you
raise with regard to what level of American taxpayers will be subjected
to these taxes.
I come from the great State of New Jersey, where we had similar
rhetoric, if you will, from the other side of the aisle on the State
level. And we actually heard the exact same arguments being made: Don't
worry, they're going to come up with what they call the millionaires'
tax; and if you're not a millionaire, don't worry about it. Well, truth
be told, after all the dust was scattered away from the bills, after
all the hearings were held, after all the press conferences and
everything else was done by the Democrats in the State of New Jersey,
we found that that level went from $1 million to $900,000 to $800,000
to $700,000 to $600,000 to $500,000, $400,000, $300,000, 250-some-odd
thousand dollars at the end of the day. Now, you still say they may be
a large income? Well, in the State of New Jersey, if you're a two-
income family making a hundred-some-odd thousand dollars, you found
that you would still be subject to tax on that.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would like to actually talk about the bill, and I would like to
talk about the underlying merits of what Mr. Hobson and I and the
members of the subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee have
tried to do.
In this particular title, we are talking about the Bureau of
Reclamation, and we are talking about people's health and well-being.
Part of that does include the wise stewardship of the moneys that are
provided. From the debate that has taken place today, you would think
that the only thing we are worried about is spending money and worried
about the quantity of the money that we are spending as opposed to the
quality of the underlying act and the work that the agencies do. And I
would draw, Mr. Chairman, my colleague's attention to page 48 of the
report that goes into great detail, and I am going to read it.
The gentleman has an amendment before us to cut $1.236 million from
the bill. And the fact is, over the last several years our
subcommittee, under the leadership of then-Chairman Hobson, as well as
myself, have done everything possible to make sure that the moneys
being spent by the Bureau of Reclamation are being spent wisely.
And I read from the report. ``In fiscal year 2006, the Committee
directed the Department of Interior to submit, with its fiscal year
2007 budget request, a detailed 5-year budget plan for each of the
major budget components, including water and related resources,
California Bay Delta Restoration program,
[[Page H6701]]
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, and Central Utah Project
Completion.''
Because the concern of the subcommittee then, and as it is as of this
moment, is that the public's moneys are being spent with quality as
well.
``The Department subsequently informed the Committee that it would be
unable to provide a 5-year plan for fiscal year 2007 and intended to
make the initial submission with the fiscal year 2008 request. The
Bureau failed to make that submission either, and now informs the
Committee that the 5-year plan will be submitted at some undefined time
in the future.''
The patience of the subcommittee, the patience of the Appropriations
Committee is not without limit. And as a result, in the report language
we note the Committee's extreme frustration with the Bureau's inability
to provide a 5-year budget plan, the act contains a provision that
transfers $10 million, not $1.236 million, but $10 million from policy
and administration to water and related resources if the 5-year plan is
not submitted within 60 days of date of enactment. We are certainly not
afraid to move moneys around, and in this case, to the tune of $10
million, if the good judgment of this committee is not abided by.
So I would emphasize that this is not just a matter of quantity of
money, it is quality of money. And that is what we are about. That is
why I am adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
{time} 1515
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be
available for purchase of not to exceed 14 passenger motor
vehicles, which are for replacement only.
General Provisions, Department of the Interior
Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to determine the final
point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis
Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and
the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the
water quality standards of the State of California as
approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis
drainage waters.
(b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program
and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as
reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully
repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program-Alternative
Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP-Alternative Repayment Plan''
described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report,
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley
Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future
obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or
providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the
San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit
beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal
reclamation law.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and
renewable energy activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,873,844,000, to
remain available until expended.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
Page 16, line 19, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $101,550,000)''.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr Chairman, one of the last speakers on
the other side of the aisle mentioned that he wasn't quite sure why we
kept talking about taxes and tax increases, because inevitably if you
head toward the balanced budget, that is what all spending turns into:
it turns into taxes.
In fact, the Democratic budget, which, to the majority party's
credit, is heading toward a balanced budget in 5 years, as were I
believe virtually all of the budgets that were presented this year, but
it does so by saying, in its own terms, that they will raise taxes as
much as they need to at the end of that 5 years in order to achieve a
balanced budget.
So when we are talking today about things that are increasing in
spending, this isn't something that is abstract. This isn't $20 million
here, $40 million here, $100 billion there of just sort of faceless,
nameless money. That is money in figures that are so large that most
people, Mr. Chairman, have a hard time even comprehending how much that
is and how it can relate to the things that we are doing.
But it makes it a little more down-to-earth, brings it a little more
home, when you look at each one of these, which is the way we should
look at them, Mr. Chairman, each one of these spending increases on
each program, on each bill, on each thing here, and realize that every
dollar of increase there is a dollar that the majority party wants to
go get out of the pockets of taxpayers at home. That is what we are
really talking about. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I propose this
amendment.
Now, this amendment refers to just one of the many, many projects and
many, many programs in this appropriations bill. This one is something
that deals with weatherization assistance, and the bill that is before
us proposes to increase weatherization assistance spending by 20
percent over last year.
Now, what is interesting is that in the President's budget, which
this amendment proposes to reduce the spending to, the President has
actually proposed to reduce this to almost half. Why is that? Because
in something that is called energy efficiency and renewable energy,
this program is actually not at all efficient.
I actually had some personal experience with this program, not
personal in the sense that I was dealing with the program from a
recipient standpoint, but when I was in the State legislature with this
program in California. By the time that you deal with the Federal
bureaucracy and then you get the money to the State and there is the
State bureaucracy, and then you put this money out, very little of this
money was actually going to anything toward the goal that was
accomplished. And what is interesting is it is also creating a subsidy
for something that already pays for itself.
The reason people weatherize their homes or seal leaks and so forth
or cracks in windows and doors is because it saves you money on your
energy bill over time.
So this is a program that has been shown to be inefficient, has been
shown to not be effective, that subsidizes something that doesn't need
subsidization, and which in this bill is proposed to increase by 20
percent.
Now, the President's budget proposed to reduce this. It is one of
those things on that list of programs that a number of people have that
are saying these are some of the most inefficient programs in the
Federal Government today, and this is one of them that certainly should
be reduced or perhaps eliminated.
But instead, this bill proposes to increase it by nearly $40 million.
And, again, $40 million, I guess sometimes this is the difference
between government and not government. When things don't work in
government, it seems that there is always a group of people saying the
reason they are not working is because they don't have enough money,
and we need to spend more money on them. Whereas, normally in the real
world, Mr. Chairman, when something isn't working, that is when people
take money from it, make it become more efficient, or not fund it
anymore if it is not working.
So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment, just this one area of this one
Department, proposes to reduce this to the President's proposed budget.
[[Page H6702]]
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, of all the work Congress does, few things could be more
important than to protect our Nation from the threat of nuclear
terrorism. It is hard to imagine that in one instant a nuclear bomb
detonating in a major American city could kill more of our citizens
than we have lost in combat in every war in our Nation's history. Osama
bin Laden has told his followers that it is their religious duty to
secure loose nuclear materials for a bomb to be set off in the United
States. It is our sacrosanct duty to ensure that that never happens.
That is why I want to salute Chairman Visclosky for making homeland
security against nuclear terrorism the highest of priorities in this
bill. He is right to do so.
This bill provides $2.1 billion to protect the American family from a
nuclear holocaust, a level that is nearly $400 million above the
administration's budget request. Specifically, it provides $832 million
for international nuclear materials protection and cooperation
activities, a $359 million increase to the budget request. With these
funds, we will expand cooperative programs with Russia and other
nations with vast inventories of nuclear material.
In this bill, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative is increased by
$132 million to a total of $251 million. This will assist us in
identifying, securing, removing, and disposing of nuclear material
throughout the world.
The Megaports Initiative is funded at $25.8 million. This program
installs radiation detectors at major seaports around the world so
nuclear weapons and materials can be intercepted before they are
smuggled into a major American city. This additional funding will allow
the Department of Energy to install sensors at several key seaports
this year, rather than waiting for several years to do so.
I wanted to take a moment of my time to also compliment the
hardworking, dedicated citizens who work at the Department of Energy on
these nuclear nonproliferation programs. They work extraordinarily long
hours, many spending long periods of time away from their families in
the harsh Russian climate working to secure these materials and to
protect us and our families from the threat of nuclear terrorism.
Let me point out some of DOE's successes because of that hard work
and because of the work of this subcommittee, chaired formerly by
Chairman Hobson, who also made homeland security against nuclear
terrorism a top priority:
DOE in recent years has completed work securing nuclear materials at
91 of 125 Russian nuclear weapons material and warhead sites, with the
remainder in progress.
We have secured more than 520 vulnerable radiological sites overseas,
containing enough nuclear material to build approximately 7,700 dirty
bombs.
We have recovered over 14,000 radiological sources domestically,
containing enough material for approximately 1,400 dirty bombs.
We have equipped 88 land border crossings in Russia with radiation
detection equipment, with work complete or under way in eight other
countries.
We have installed Megaports radiation detection equipment at eight
ports, with operational testing and evaluation under way at one
additional port.
Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, President Bush said that protecting our
Nation from nuclear terrorism should be our Nation's number one
national security priority. I agree. With the strong leadership of
Chairman Visclosky and now Ranking Member Hobson, this bill takes a
significant step forward in protecting our communities, our families
and our Nation from the threat of nuclear terrorism.
That is why I urge bipartisan support for this important legislation.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California. I note that this amendment is offered to the
section of the bill on energy efficiency and renewable energy, and I
would note first that the President's request for this year is more
than 10 percent below on every one of the renewable energy accounts in
the budget. Those are cuts below the 2007 enacted amount, and it covers
biomass, which leads to the biomass accounts, which include biodiesel,
corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, which, of course, is the area that
so many people believe is going to be a major saver in the future.
It includes solar energy, wind energy, geothermal technology,
hydropower, vehicle technologies, where 30 percent of all of our energy
is used, building technologies, where 40 percent of all of our energy
is used, industrial technologies, where 20 percent of all of our energy
is used. And the President proposes in those areas 10 percent
reductions below the enacted, whereas the subcommittee, in its wisdom,
and apparently agreed to certainly by me and certainly apparently
agreed by the gentleman from California, the committee has added moneys
over the enacted number for 2007. So we apparently agree on that.
But then, oddly enough, the gentleman from California chooses to
attack the one program that gives direct help to low-income households
in this country. It is the one program, the weatherization program,
where low-income households can get assistance to install energy-saving
technologies and measures in their homes.
Well, it turns out there are something like 14 million households in
this country that have incomes of less than 50 percent of the median
income in various areas around the country. Half of them live in homes.
Most of those homes are very inefficient users of energy. So the Low
Income Weatherization Program is a program that would help those homes
be more efficient in the use of energy.
The President's request for this year is in fact below the enacted
2007 number actually by more than 30 percent below what the enacted
2007 number was. Enacted 2006 number was even higher than the 2007
number. So the committee, in its wisdom, has instead recommended
raising the number to the 2006 level, to the levels expended in fiscal
year 2006, and the gentleman from California wants to take it back from
the committee's number by this time 45 percent or something like that,
the exact number I haven't quite calculated.
{time} 1530
Those moneys are well invested in those homes which low-income
households are using, where energy is so inefficiently used, where we
can save a substantial amount of energy every year, thereby reducing
greenhouse gases that are produced in the production of the energy that
would otherwise be wasted in those homes. And where one would say far
beyond the cost of the energy-saving measures that would be part of the
weatherization program, far beyond the cost. In such situations, you
are saving the amount of the cost within a 3 or 4 or 5-year period when
the savings go on long into the future, year after year after year,
saving energy and reducing greenhouse gases and saving dollars. Perhaps
most important for those people, it is the savings of the dollars that
they otherwise would spend in those low-income households where the
amount of money spent on housing per se in low-income households tends
to be up in the two-thirds to three-quarters of the total household
income.
So I think the weatherization program is a very useful program, a
very effective program for saving money for people at the lowest levels
of income. I hope we will soundly defeat this amendment by the
gentleman from California.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, first of all before I begin, let me commend a prior
speaker, the gentleman from Texas, with his references to homeland
security and the efforts that need to be made. I completely concur with
the majority of the points that he makes.
This House, as you know, just dealt with those issues the other day
on homeland security and how it relates to my congressional district is
one of the forefront issues that I deal with. I commend the points he
is making there.
Tied to homeland security is energy security as well. We will not be
a secure country if we are not secure with regard to our energy needs.
Much in
[[Page H6703]]
this underlying legislation and what the administration is calling for
is working towards that laudable goal, energy efficiency and renewable
energies as well. And I concur with the previous speaker with his
remarks as well, that we must move in that direction.
I guess the rub is how you get to some of these things. When you talk
to your local constituents back at home. When we have the opportunity
to go back to our districts and talk to them and they see just how
Washington spends their very hard-earned dollars, they must think we
are literally burning their dollars down here and wasting them on
inefficient programs. Some of them of course are important. Others need
to be prioritized down the line to put them in the proper perspective.
The legislation we have before us, more specifically the amendment,
goes to that ultimate goal, setting priorities. Now the gentleman who
is proposing this amendment is from the great State of California, a
very warm State. I have come from the great Northeast where
weatherization is a critical matter, especially for the low-income
individuals who need to do something in order to make sure that their
limited dollars go as far as they possibly can.
They are called upon in their daily lives to be as efficient as they
can with their limited dollars, whether it is spending on food or rent
costs, or in this case, their energy costs.
But they are asking us the very same thing in Washington. They are
asking us to be efficient and effective with their dollars because they
want to tell us these dollars are limited as well. Because it comes out
of the American taxpayers' pocketbook.
What we are looking at here is the largest tax increase in U.S.
history, and this is going to be a negative impact on the average
American family of $1,500 or $2,000 more that comes out of their
wallets and is sent to Washington. They are asking to make sure that
the dollars spent are done effectively.
I am a Member of the 108th Congress. I came in with the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a few others, I believe, that started a
group called WWW, Washington Waste Watchers. They would come to the
floor each week and talk about areas of concern to them and this entire
Congress to make sure that Washington moves in the right direction, to
be stopping this wasteful spending of dollars.
So before we take a program that is already in existence, that we
know as the testimony here earlier from the gentleman from California
may be a laudable program in some sense in terms of providing
assistance to those who need it, but it is wasting the dollars in
another sense because it is not really getting to those individuals who
desperately need it, and it is going elsewhere and being done in an
inefficient manner.
Before we simply up the dollars and not make sure that those dollars
get to those low- and moderate-income people to get the job done, as
the gentleman from California pointed out, let's make sure that we have
something, something to make sure that we do so in an efficient and
effective manner. That is what the WWW, Washington Waste Watchers, is
trying to do. That is what the Republican side of the aisle is trying
to do.
Let's implement programs to say we will operate this House of
Representatives the same as a family's budget would; that we will
operate just as stringently with our dollars here as if they were our
very own. We will make sure that there are systems in place,
accountability in place to make sure that the dollars really get to the
places they need to get to. And before we get those mechanisms set up
and established, we are not going to waste any more taxpayer dollars by
going to them and saying we are going to raise tax dollars or raise tax
rates, and simply up the spending on a program until we can certify
that program is being run effectively and efficiently.
I commend the gentleman from California for trying to move in the
right direction to make sure that we don't have the largest tax
increase in history, and to make sure that programs like this are run
efficiently and effectively.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Texas.
I want to make a last couple of comments relative to the comments
made by the gentleman from Massachusetts. A lot of what the gentleman
from Massachusetts said I agree with. I think we differ in three basic
areas.
One is that the gentleman from Massachusetts believes this program
has been effective. My involvement with it in California and things
that I have seen statistically here say otherwise. Certainly the
administration agrees this program has not been a cost-effective
program.
Second is talking about how this thing might save money here. But
where does this money come from? It is $245 million. This money does
not come from the sky. It does not come from the air. It comes from
taxpayers. And the question is not does it save anybody any money or
anybody anything; is it cost effective in what it does? And I think the
answer is ``no.''
The third comment I would like to make is that the gentleman pointed
out a number of programs in this bill which have all been increased in
this proposed bill. That is fine, but I guess I would ask this: Are
there no programs here which are not effective? Are there no programs
that deserve some reduction in spending or perhaps even elimination?
Ronald Reagan said that the closest thing to eternal life is a
government program, and I believe we are seeing with programs like this
that those words Ronald Reagan made some time ago ring true.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to share, when asked what programs have
been cut or not cut, I want to share with you, 37 cuts to Department of
Energy weapons programs; 57 programs have been cut overall; 20 cuts to
other programs, 2 in the Corps of Engineers, 2 in the Bureau of
Reclamation, 3 independent agencies, and 13 in the Department of
Energy. There have been 16 of 37 weapons cuts that were requested by
the administration.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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 California
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for electricity delivery and
energy reliability activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $134,161,000, to
remain available until expended.
Nuclear Energy
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for nuclear energy activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion, and the purchase of not to exceed 20 passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only, including one ambulance,
$759,227,000, to remain available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
Page 17, line 14, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $20,000,000)(increased by $20,000,000)''.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, this is a very simple
amendment and perhaps the majority might want to just accept it, so let
me just explain.
[[Page H6704]]
The generation IV nuclear energy systems program is the next far, far
generation program. We have been waiting and working for the generation
III program. This is about the generation IV after that, which is 2030.
There is a lot of money in this that is going to be used to develop
energy far into the future, and yet we have in the present nuclear
power program of 2010, we have need for this money here and today.
I point this out to my colleagues, particularly on that side of the
aisle, that if we don't get enough money to the nuclear power 2010
program, power plants across this country will be forced to build gas
and coal-burning power plants to meet the ever-growing energy demands
of this Nation.
So if you really want to reduce greenhouse gases, I think you should
support my amendment because you are basically taking this money, $20
million, from the generation IV nuclear systems energy account which
has been funded at almost $80 million above the President's budget
request, and you are simply transferring it to the nuclear power 2010
account which is funded almost $34 million below the President's budget
request.
If the other side is willing to accept my amendment, I am willing to
stop talking and we can proceed. If you are concerned about global
warming and coal- and gas-burning, this will help our Nation move
forward by helping the nuclear power plants in the near, near future
instead of the far, far future.
Let me talk about the nuclear power 2010 program. It is intended
simply to encourage near-term orders for advanced versions of existing
commercial nuclear plants. Frankly, it is an integral part of the goal
of constructing new plants in the next decade.
Approximately two-thirds of the new reactors use a reactor technology
that depends on nuclear power 2010. Nuclear power plants generate
electricity without producing or emitting any greenhouse gases,
including carbon dioxide. Nuclear power plants generate 73 percent of
all carbon-free electricity in America and are an essential mitigation
tool for reducing greenhouse gases.
If we are serious about addressing the issue of global climate
change, then nuclear power must be a critical component of any future
energy and environmental strategy we have in this country.
With the additional funds in this amendment, the program for 2010, we
could focus more on reducing the technical, regulatory and
institutional barriers to the deployment of new nuclear power plants in
the near term while still allowing a generous increase in funds for the
generation IV program. So the money is already there for generation IV.
So I am just asking a very modicum amount, taking from the generation
IV and moving it to the near term, so that we can build these nuclear
power plants.
I conclude by saying failure to meet the goals of the nuclear 2010
program could result in delays 1 year, 2 years, possibly 3 years, and
create the possibility of an indefinite delay as companies attempt to
meet the demand with other types of generation, including coal and
natural gases.
I conclude and thank my colleagues for listening, but I think when
you realize it is not very complicated, we are just taking $20 million
from a generation IV nuclear research program that we have no results
from and don't know anything about and moving them to a current program
in 2010 and saying let's let the nuclear industry have this special
advantage so we can combat global warming and we can make sure that we
move forward with nuclear power generation in this country as soon as
possible.
{time} 1545
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
I appreciate what the gentleman wants to do. We certainly share a
concern about global warming. We also share a desire to ensure that we
have a viable nuclear industry in the near term as well as the long
term. Where there would be a difference of opinion is the balance that
needs to be struck in this legislation to accomplish both of those
goals.
I would point out that the legislation that has been reported to the
House has done everything possible to ensure that the nuclear industry
can move forward. For example, we have fully funded the President's
request for $494 million for Yucca Mountain to make sure that they can
meet their deadline for the submission of a license for the waste
repository in June of 2008. The industry clearly needs the repository.
The House bill includes $167.8 million for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, something that I think the gentleman would agree is
critically necessary as far as the licensing procedures in the shorter
term. This is a $17.1 million increase over the administration's
request, more than 10 percent more. And I would point out that in the
continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007, this was one of the few
accounts that this subcommittee specifically also increased. We also
include $15 million within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for
nuclear engineering scholarships that were proposed for termination by
the administration, because if we do not have new, bright talent in
those educational facilities under scholarship, we are not going to
have a future.
And we did include moneys for Nuclear Power 2010. It is the same
level as the current fiscal year. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that
this is a direct payment to utilities undergoing the NRC license
process and no other sector of the energy portion of this country
receives this type of Federal assistance.
The gentleman would take the money from Generation IV nuclear energy
systems by having the moneys reduced. I would point out that the
subcommittee went to great lengths to increase moneys for Generation
IV. We are supportive of the light water reactors that are going to be
coming online in the near term. We want to make sure we have that next
generation of reactors online as well for the future, one that can not
only provide electrical industry to our Nation that is needed but also
potentially produce the hydrogen for the new economy we are looking
for. We have provided those moneys and would not want to see them cut.
Additionally, we had a debate and conversation earlier today about
the mixed oxide program that previously had been designated a
nonproliferation item. We have correctly moved it into the Energy
Department as far as their accounts and would point out that $689
million between unobligated balances, between the spending for '07 and
between what is included in this bill, is included for MOX.
So we have been more than generous, and I also think we have struck
the right balance to ensure that we do have an industry starting up in
the near term and one that has a long-term, safe future for the
generation of energy in this country.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The bill
includes a $33 million cut to Nuclear Power 2010. While that level may
be difficult for some to accept, I fully support it.
Nuclear Power 2010 was designed to facilitate industry decisions to
build and operate new nuclear power plants in the U.S. And that would
be great for America. We need a dramatic increase in reliable, safe
baseload energy; and I would much rather see it come from nuclear
energy than from coal plants.
Unfortunately, most of the funding that we have provided for Nuclear
Power 2010 doesn't go to help industry figure out our untested
regulatory process or to identify new sites for plants. Most of the
funding in this account has been provided to support the work of
reactor designers. There is little uncertainty about reactor design. It
doesn't need our support through this program. And there's really no
such thing as struggling mom-and-pop reactor design teams. But I do
know that we must continue to support design for the next generation of
reactors. This bill does just that. It increases our support to the Gen
IV nuclear design program by $79 million. That's where nuclear R&D
should be funded, not from Nuclear Power 2010.
I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this amendment.
I yield additional time to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have that the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio gave me?
[[Page H6705]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4 minutes on the gentleman
from Ohio's time.
Mr. STEARNS. If I might address the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr.
Chairman, I have here the Energy and Water Development appropriations
bill. On page 68, it indicates that the Nuclear Power 2010, you provide
about $80 million, a decrease of $34 million. So the question I have
for you, if you support this program so much, why would you cut it $34
million, which is basically a huge percentage?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana to answer the
question.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to the question raised.
First of all I would point out that the funds that are provided are at
this year's fiscal level. It is not a cut. It is a cut from the
President's request.
The other observation I would make is I believe that the Department
should be in the business of science research and development and not
exclusively be paying for companies to license new reactors, so that
would certainly do justification.
Mr. STEARNS. Then the other question is, in Generation IV, the
nuclear energy system by which you increased it $80 million, it seems
to me, and you might want to answer this question, here you have a
program that is a fourth generation of nuclear research. We don't even
have the results from the second and third generation nuclear research,
yet you're increasing a huge amount of money for something well into
the future when you have a system, the 2010 energy system, which could
use this money today and would go towards improving global warming and
put less demand on all these nuclear energy companies because they
certainly can't meet the demand in the next 2 years without burning
coal and gas.
So I ask the gentleman, why would he want to increase something
that's a fourth generation when the second and third generation have
not even been successful in providing anything for us?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. And if the gentleman from Ohio would yield, I would be
happy to respond.
Mr. HOBSON. I yield.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would point out that there was a $70 million
increase, and I would not want to engage in quibbling as to whether it
is a second, third or fourth generation, but do believe there is a
strong public purpose for demonstrating the commercial viability of the
thermal-neutron gas reactor for the very purposes that the gentleman is
concerned about and that I share his concern, that is, climate change
and global warming and energy sources, where we can generate the
electricity in this country as well as potentially produce hydrogen. We
ought to start down that road sooner rather than later, and again in a
balanced fashion along with 2010.
Mr. HOBSON. Taking back my time, I would point out to the gentleman
from Florida that we do have the capability, and we do understand
Generation 3, 3\1/2\. Where we need to go is beyond that and look at
Gen IV. That's what we're trying to do in the bill now, and that's why
we oppose the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. 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 Florida will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Schmidt
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Schmidt:
Page 17, line 14, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $80,000,000)''.
Page 21, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $80,000,000)''.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for our
chairman and ranking member and realize the very difficult undertaking
they have had in putting this bill together and balancing the number of
important priorities within it. Unfortunately, the bill before us would
drastically cut the President's request to $405 million for the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, initiative to $120 million. This
amounts to a $285 million reduction from the President's request for
GNEP.
At the same time, this bill goes well above the President's request
for the Department of Energy science account. The President's request
for the science account was already a 15.8 percent increase above the
fiscal 2007 level. On top of this, the House bill provides another $116
million above the administration's request. My amendment would provide
an additional $80 million for the GNEP initiative, offset by an $80
million decrease in the science account.
If we are going to be serious about reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, addressing climate change and reducing our dependence on
foreign oil, we need to allow GNEP to proceed in a meaningful capacity.
To accomplish these objectives, we need to diversify our energy supply
and increase energy efficiency and conservation. Nuclear energy is a
vital component to diversifying our energy supply and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. And in order for the nuclear renaissance to
become a reality, we must address the spent fuel issue, which is what
GNEP is all about.
Recycling spent nuclear fuel is a way to reduce by about 95 percent
the volume of waste that would have to be disposed of at the Yucca
Mountain repository. Recycling would also enable us to reduce the
radioactive life of this material from millions of years to thousands.
Whether you support nuclear energy or not, these two points should be
very positive if we are going to take better care of our environment.
Since the 1970s, the United States has been falling behind the world
in nuclear technology. It is vital that we fund this program at a
sufficient level that allows the United States to reestablish itself as
a leader in the field.
I appreciate the chairman and ranking member's work on this important
issue. I would hope for some favorable comments from them. But I am
going to at the end of this discussion ask for unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment in hopes that we can work it out at a later date.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's concern about research
for nuclear energy in the future. I also appreciate the courtesy as far
as her willingness to withdraw the amendment.
The concern that the committee had is that the administration came in
originally with a $405 million request. During hearings, the
administration also suggested that all $405 million was for just
research. The concern we have, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks
during general debate, is contract management at the Department of
Energy. And certainly it's not the fault of the gentlelady's, and I
know she shares our concern, but there is a very bad track record at
the Department of Energy; and the fact is they have been on a high-risk
watch list for the General Accountability Office since the year 1990.
{time} 1600
I would point out that the committee learned that the Department of
Energy's use of technology readiness levels in the global nuclear
energy partnership technology development plan does not apply readiness
in the manner consistent with the recommendations in the General
Accountability Office report of March of this year.
So, looking ahead as far as potentially incurring huge long-term
costs on behalf of the taxpayers, we have suggested that the
administration take a step back, continue to do very necessary and very
vital research, but let us take all deliberate speed as opposed to a
rush to judgment and oppose her amendment, and I appreciate her
consideration in withdrawing it.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment, and I thank the chairman for his time and consideration of
this and hope that we can work together to make GNEP a reality in a
meaningful, bipartisan way so that the United States can continue to be
a world leader, not just in nuclear energy but in energy independence
from foreign oil.
[[Page H6706]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Clean Coal Technology
(including rescission of funds)
Of the funds made available under this heading for
obligation in prior years, $149,000,000 are rescinded.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy
research and development activities, under the authority of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91),
including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible
and equitable interests in any real property or any facility
or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for
the hire of passenger motor vehicles, the hire, maintenance,
and operation of aircraft, the purchase, repair, and cleaning
of uniforms, the reimbursement to the General Services
Administration for security guard services, and for
conducting inquiries, technological investigations and
research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and
disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social
and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603),
$708,801,000 to remain available until expended of which
$166,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from ``Clean Coal
Technology'', and of which transferred amounts $108,000,000
is available to continue a multi-year project coordinated
with the private sector for FutureGen, without regard to the
terms and conditions applicable to clean coal technological
projects, and of which the remaining $58,000,000 is available
for carbon sequestration research and development: Provided
further, That no part of the sums herein made available shall
be used for the field testing of nuclear explosives in the
recovery of oil and gas: Provided further, That the Secretary
of Energy is authorized to accept fees and contributions from
public and private sources, to be deposited in a contributed
funds account, and prosecute projects using such fees and
contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State, or
private agencies or concerns: Provided further, That revenues
and other moneys received by or for the account of the
Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of
products in connection with projects of the Department
appropriated under the Fossil Energy Research and Development
account may be retained by the the Secretary of Energy, to be
available until expended, and used only for plant
construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-sharing
entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing contracts or
agreements.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kline of Minnesota
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Kline of Minnesota:
Page 18, line 10, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $142,000,000)''.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce
funding for the fossil energy research and development account in this
bill by $142 million. These funds appropriated in this account go
toward research of oil, gasoline, coal and natural gas.
Funding this account at $709 million, as in this bill, would be a
19\1/2\ percent increase over last year's appropriation amount and 20
percent higher than what was requested by the administration.
This massive increase in spending is aimed at research of oil, coal
and natural gas. With energy prices rising, our research dollars are
better spent by going toward alternative and diversified energy sources
like nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower and others.
You may be interested to know that some of the research projects
funded by this account include: a submersible-deployed micro-drill for
sampling of shallow gas deposits, ultra-lightweight cement, and an oil
and gas resource assessment of the Russian Arctic.
Given the record profits being made by oil, gas and coal companies,
the research of oil and gas resources of the Russian Arctic should be
done and paid for by those oil companies, not by American taxpayers who
have already paid for it at the pump.
A half a billion dollars in Federal funds appropriated to this
account, as was the case last year, should be more than enough for the
government's share of this research.
Any additional funding, and I'm talking about funding over the half a
billion dollar plus what's already in last year's bill, any additional
funding should be borne by the private sector.
My amendment would save the taxpayers $142 million and remove that 20
percent increase in spending on fossil fuel research.
Solutions to our rising energy prices are not found in a massive
increase in deficit spending, and we've been talking a lot about
deficit spending today.
Not only does this bill have a 20 percent increase in spending for
fossil fuel research, it contains a $1.3 billion increase over last
year's Energy and Water appropriation.
It seems that this appropriation bill is another example of
ballooning Federal spending and increasing Federal deficits to be paid
for by ever-higher taxes.
We know it's been discussed today that the Federal budget that was
passed by House Democrats earlier this year does indeed include the
largest tax increase in American history. It would raise taxes by at
least $217 billion. We're looking for ways to reduce spending, modest
ways. That's all that these appropriation bills allow us. We can't
address the massive spending that comes from entitlement spending, but
we can get at sensible ways to control the spending in these
discretionary funds.
My amendment is a step in the right direction. Let's save the
taxpayers $142 million and remove this huge 20 percent increase in
spending for fossil fuel research.
There have been proposals to put price controls on oil companies. I
vehemently oppose those, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask
them to put some of those profits back into this essential research and
development, take the burden off the taxpayers. Let's in a bipartisan
way support this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and
would observe for the House that, again, I am not in total disagreement
with some of the assertions and points that he has made.
The fact is, there is no silver bullet as far as solving the energy
problems we face today and in the future. He is absolutely correct.
That is why the subcommittee has significantly increased funding for
biofuels. That's why the subcommittee significantly increased funding
for vehicle technology. That's why the subcommittee increased funding
for other types of renewables. The gentleman references solar and wind,
for example. That's why there's an increase in the hydrogen account.
That's why there's an increase as far as maximization of power produced
with hydroelectric facilities.
And so what we're trying to do is to strike a balance, and again
getting back to my earlier comments about quantity and quality, we are
concerned and spoke about it in the bill language, as well as the
report language, about the fossil fuel program. I certainly, for one,
absolutely believe that we need to do more on the issue of capturing
CO2, and we have done that in this bill. We need to do more
as far as in sequestration of that particular gas, but we have to do it
intelligently.
The fact is, a FutureGen program that has been initiated under the
Department of Energy, from my perspective, took a very bad turn in the
road as people continue to look at adding bells and whistles, and we
had a colloquy on that particular issue earlier in the day as well.
I would point out that FutureGen, according to the committee report,
needs to be refocused as an integrated gasification combined cycle
plant with carbon capture and sequestration and drop the ambiguity of
other, less critical research components. The committee believes that
by streamlining the design to demonstrate these factors, critical goals
can be reached in a more timely and fiscally prudent fashion.
So what we're trying to do in the bill is to have a broad range of
new energy sources accelerated through increased funding. We have done
that with fossil but have not done so blindly. We want to make sure
that that money is spent wisely, given the fact that nearly 50 percent
of this country's electricity is generated today by coal-powered
plants. I absolutely believe that we should pursue this research and
would reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to
[[Page H6707]]
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
I rise in opposition to this amendment, although I believe it is of
value in making sure we question how we spend our money.
I'm concerned that coal provides over 50 percent of our energy source
in America. In this bill, there's $108 million for FutureGen which is
creating energy from coal without emissions; $73 million for the other
clean coal power initiative; and some $376 million has been recommended
for the core research and development program, much of that done at the
National Energy Technology Research labs, some of which are in my
district, and others in West Virginia and Oregon and around the
country.
We have a 250-year supply of coal under our Nation's soil.
Conversely, other parts of the world that have oil will run out long
before we are out of coal.
We have to crack the code in understanding how to create electrical
energy out of coal without emissions. It is a monumental and perhaps
one of the greatest scientific challenges of our time.
If we're able to do this, we'll be able to create the electrical
energy and the power we need to power our factories, to light our homes
and run our office buildings. Without this, we will continue to be
subject to the whims of countries involved with OPEC who manipulate the
price of our energy every day.
A report done this year through MIT called the Future of Coal stated
that we need perhaps billions to deal with this issue of finding out
how to create energy out of clean coal. It is an important investment
and one that we cannot lag on, one that we have to continue to work on.
I certainly encourage all of us to look at ways we can watch for any
waste involved with how this money is spent on every level in
appropriations; however, I ask that this be one area, where America has
abundant supplies of coal, we make sure that we continue to mine our
coal because it's one of the few ways that we can do so and create
energy without having to worry about the whims of terrorists and OPEC
states.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, most of the $142 million proposed as an
increase in the account would support research and development of
carbon capture and sequestration technology. No matter what energy
future one believes in, fossil fuels will play a significant role. This
increase would fund the R&D that we've simply got to do to isolate the
carbon and store it to reduce emissions.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
One of the things that we have to understand that we're talking about
today on this floor, we're talking about a lot of different kinds of
security. We're talking about energy security. We're also talking about
economic security. But really the bottom line we're talking about is
jobs in America.
No doubt that energy is a major issue in our country. Our energy
dependence becomes a problem, is continuing to be a problem, but what
we have to do is go about this in a way that makes sense.
And when we look at, yes, we need to look at additional research in
certain areas and additional expenditures in other areas and nuclear,
and the gentleman from Florida brought that point forward, the
gentleman brings forward the fact that we're increasing things like
that by 20 percent. That would be really good if we were spending
surpluses, but in fact we're not spending from surpluses, and what
we're talking about is deficit spending and what we're talking about is
an economic future for our young men and women.
Because you see what we're on the floor here today trying to do. My
colleagues and I are trying to save the American taxpayers some money,
because we have a leadership on the other side of the aisle that's on a
spending spree. They think they have surpluses that they're spending,
and in fact we're not.
In fact, we've got a $23 billion increase. We have got these ``funny
money'' accounts where we're going to come up with the money from
someplace. We all know where that money is coming from. That money is
going to come from the American taxpayers because they've already gone
on record to say that we're going to pass the largest tax increase in
American history. And the way they're going to do that is they're going
to tax the rich people.
Well, let's talk about the tax structure in this country today. For
example, who are the rich people? We've got 1 percent of the top wage
earners in this country already paying 33 percent of the taxes. Now,
the next level up, the top 5 percent, they get to pay 54 percent of the
taxes, and the top 10 percent get to pay 68 percent of the taxes.
Recently, the Tax Foundation brought forth a point that I think most
of us knew, and that is, that three out of every five, that's 60
percent, of America's highest income-bracket payers are small business
people. Let me repeat that. Three out of every five of the people who
are in the upper bracket, which is the bracket that they want to tax,
are small business people.
And what do small business people do? Well, they just do something
that's extraordinarily great for America. They create jobs. In fact,
they're the largest creator of jobs in this country. And what we did is
back in 2003 we said, you know what, we want small businesses to create
more jobs, make more economic security for our young people, and so we
lowered the taxes.
And what happened? Well, something wonderful. We created 7.8 million
new jobs in America. And you know what creating 7.8 million new jobs in
America did for us? Well, number one, we have the highest home
ownership rate in the history of this country.
{time} 1615
More people own a home today than any other time in the history of
this Nation. Guess what, more people are employed than any other time
in the history of our Nation.
What we have to do, the Speaker of this House stood up on the day
that she was sworn in and said, we listened to the people. I don't
think they were listening. If they thought the American people were
saying we want more spending and more taxes, I think they
misunderstood.
If the American people said anything, it is they want a government
that's less, that takes less of their money, spends less of their
money, lives, spends their money like government spends their money
like the American people have to, they have to spend within their
limits.
Yes, I will like a 2 percent increase in this and a 2 percent
increase in that, but the truth of the matter is, we can't afford it.
If we continue on this trend of higher taxes, bigger spending, we are
going to see these job numbers begin to talk.
So when you talk about we want more energy-efficient cars, let me
tell you, if we don't have anybody that can afford cars in America
because they don't have jobs, then what do we need energy-efficient
cars for?
Let's be sensible about our policy here. We are making a sufficient
amount of commitments to many of these initiatives, but we have to do
it in a commonsense way. We have to do it in a way that says, you know
what, a 2 percent increase or 3 percent, maybe this program should be
eliminated, because this program is not providing any dividends for the
American taxpayers.
We measure, around here, what we are doing about our problem by how
much money we spend on it. Quite honestly, that's how we got in the
situation of these large deficits is because we keep throwing money at
problems instead of standing up here on the floor of this House and
debating these issues and talking about what is in the best interest of
the taxpayers.
I commend the gentleman from Minnesota on his amendment and urge
passage.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I read a sign almost every day, they are out in
hallways all over, from the Blue Dog Coalition, and as of today, it
says today's U.S. national debt, $8.807 trillion; your share, $29,000.
There's some of us all the time we have been in the House been trying
to do something about that. We have been trying to bring down the
deficit. We have been trying to with our own party, the Republicans,
with the Democrats now in the majority, get spending reined in.
[[Page H6708]]
Also, in our Natural Resources Committee, as well as other committees
around, we have been trying to find answers to our energy problem,
because, let's face it, we're funding our enemies, people that want to
see us, have damage done to our way of life, if not destroyed.
So how do we get around this energy debacle where we keep using
fossil fuels that keep funding our enemies? I heard a chairman say a
moment ago, there is no silver bullet. I couldn't agree more. We need
every single aspect of energy, all of the alternative energies, all of
the energy sources we have, that includes drilling the Outer
Continental Shelf and areas where it would be safe to do so. It
includes drilling in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in
Alaska, and here we've got $142 million that is in issue here.
As the saying goes, $142 million here, $142 million there, before
long, we are talking about real money. People in our hometowns, they
understand, this is a lot of money, may not be to some of us up here in
Washington, but, as we have seen recently, as we have seen recently the
last couple of weeks in Natural Resources, people keep wanting to study
things, let's study this.
We were ready to go on a biomass program. In the energy bill marked
up last week, we are going to back up 10 years and have another study
on that. We have these programs ready to go, and we keep wanting to
back up and have more studies done.
What we really need to do is just move forward. Some of these
studies, when left to the private sector, they are going to recoup
their money and their profits. Let them pay for these things. They are
making all these profits. Why should we use taxpayer dollars to do
that?
So we have coal that if the bill becomes law that was passed out of
Resources, it's going to make it harder to utilize the coal we have.
All these different alternative energy sources are available, and we
keep wanting to use money to study them.
What occurs to me, when I hear there is no silver bullet, is not only
do I agree that there is no silver bullet solution, but I keep feeling
like, because we keep appointing studies and keep wanting to spend
taxpayers' hard-earned money to study things, instead of just going
ahead and producing, that the silver bullet may be in the Chamber
that's pointed to our Nation's collective head here.
It's time to quit studying. It's time to move forward, it's time to
use money for purposes that are not those that should be done by the
private sector, and then we can get back to money.
Then, lo and behold, all those folks have been saying we really don't
want to raise taxes even though it looks like it's going to be the
largest tax increase in American history. All those who say we don't
want to raise taxes, it's this $142 million here, $142 million there.
Before you know it, we may even be able to lower taxes even further.
So I will encourage my colleagues, let's quit studying, let's quit
spending money that could be going back to taxpayers if we are not
going to need it for something more pressing, quit studying, start
producing and then that silver bullet won't be aimed at our head.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, thank you to the chairman and the ranking member of
this committee as we debate a very important piece of legislation in
the Energy and Water appropriations bill.
I would like to talk specifically about an issue that is vitally
important to literally hundreds of thousands of people in Minnesota,
South Dakota, and Iowa. The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is a
unique water project that I am hopeful will receive the appropriate
funding as the Energy and Water appropriations bill moves forward.
This Lewis and Clark water project, when completed, will provide
safe, reliable drinking water to over 300,000 people in roughly 5,000
square miles of South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota. The project will
move water from the Missouri River into those areas to provide safe
drinking water and the ability of those communities to grow
economically.
Minnesota is called the Land of 10,000 lakes. Unfortunately, they are
not equally distributed. For example, in Rock County there is not a
single natural lake. The lack of water has a profound impact on
economic development. Businesses are reluctant to locate or expand
because of the lack of reliable water.
I literally have communities that I represent that cannot permit a
single new home to be built until someone moves out because their water
shortages are that severe. Seventeen of the 20 local municipalities
that are participating in this project, and I repeat on this and say it
very carefully, have prepaid $87 million of their local share of the
expenses in order to keep inflationary costs at a minimum.
Additionally, all three States involved, Minnesota, South Dakota and
Iowa, have committed to prepay on the project as well.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government is the partner that's lacking.
My constituents, the people of South Dakota and Iowa, clearly
understand expenditures of Federal dollars for investments are not
necessarily wasteful. If the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System
receives its full $35 million in requests this year, this project will
be completed by 2018. However, if we are funded at the level President
Bush has requested in his 2008 budget, we will not see completion until
past 2051.
The 300,000 people of Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa can't wait
that long. Previous Congresses have created a significant budget
crisis. I hear my colleagues mentioning that, and they're absolutely
right. We spent at deficit records. We created a national debt that is
staggering, but we cannot be penny-wise and pound-foolish.
The longer we take to provide appropriate Federal funds, the more
this project is going to cost, and it is already being built. It is
already being prepaid, and it will produce significant economic gains
for us.
I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to
make sure this project is appropriately funded.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Before I begin, let me just say I concur with the gentleman from
Minnesota on his priorities that he is setting forth, and I cannot
honestly say that I am familiar with each and every aspect of the
provisions that he is raising there; but from his testimony before the
House right now, they seem to at least rise to the level of
significance, especially when you go to the concern of making sure that
people need to have adequate drinking supply. So I appreciate him
coming to the floor and making that point.
I think the gentleman's point coincides with the point that I wish to
make right now in support of the gentleman's amendment that is on the
floor before us right now, and that is that it's incumbent upon this
House and this body to set priorities. The American public asks no less
of us, inasmuch as we are spending their hard-earned tax dollars. The
American public has seen the misapplication of setting of priorities of
this House in past administrations and past Houses in the past.
The American public has been outspoken when they saw, with regard to
what happened with Katrina, and the infamous case of buying of FEMA
trailers, literally thousands of them, that were then set on land and
never used for their rightful purposes. The American public was
outraged when they said the priorities were not appropriately spent
with their tax dollars in that instance.
Likewise we were outraged when they heard about the proverbial
``bridge to nowhere.'' Again they asked were not priorities set as to
where their tax dollars go when it comes to transportation purposes.
Again, finally in the area of earmarks, and the latter point raises
the earmarks. When the American public hears about the litany of
earmarks that come out of both this House and Senate as well, the
Cowgirl Hall of Fame and other such things, again the American public
asks are priorities not set on these matters, again, with their hard-
earned tax dollars.
Well, the American public spoke this last November and at least this
side of the aisle heard them loud and clear. We must set appropriate
priorities when it comes to the American tax dollars.
[[Page H6709]]
Unfortunately, unfortunately, the priorities that seem to be coming
from the other side of the aisle in the majority of cases are not the
appropriate priorities that the American public would set for
themselves. Priority number one from the other side of the aisle is a
budget which raises taxes, the largest tax increase in U.S. history
upon the American family.
Priority number two from the other side of the aisle appears to be an
increase in spending with little or no regard to accountability or
cutting spending in any areas. We see that in this case.
When I hear the arguments made, both pro and con in this bill, I am
taken aback. All this amendment simply does is to say that the American
taxpayer dollars should not be there and spent to subsidize Big Oil.
We had similar language in legislation last year. I know I supported
it saying that the American taxpayer, in light of oil now being sold at
over $60 a barrel, should not be forced into a situation anymore to
support Big Oil in coal industries when it comes to these things
through tax credits and tax cuts. I supported those, saying the
American public in that regard.
But, now, today, when we have a Member, Congressman Kline, saying
let's at least rein in, let's at least set some priorities as to where
our energy dollars should go, let's go to those areas, as the gentleman
here said, perhaps some who support carbon capture issues; let's have
some of those dollars, as a Member from the other side of the aisle
says, go to renewable energy resources, whether it be wind, water or
geothermal or et cetera. Let those dollars go to those areas, but let's
set the priorities of those dollars to go specifically to those areas
and not on extraneous purposes, as we saw in this bill.
Congressman Kline gave a couple of examples that really just threw me
when I heard them once again. The American public must really scratch
their head, as I did, when they say, should we be giving, as
Congressman Kline said, given the record profits being made by oil, gas
and coal, the research of oil and gas resources of the Russian Arctic
should be done and paid for by those oil companies and not by American
taxpayers. This amendment simply goes to make sure that occurs.
Likewise, again in the Arctic area, submersible deployed microdrill
sampling, ultralight cement and oil and gas resource assessments in
that area. Who should be paying for that? The American public?
We already pay for that when we go to the pump each time. Shouldn't
it be the oil companies who should make it a private investment and not
the American tax borrowers? This amendment simply says let's set those
priorities, let's reduce spending on those areas and make sure that we
have the dollars from the American public to spend on those other
areas, be they renewable energy or otherwise.
{time} 1630
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Jones of Ohio) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pomeroy, Acting Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2641) making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________