Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 100 (Wednesday, June 20, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 20, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6757-H6794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2008

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

{time} 1248

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2641) making appropriations for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2008, and for other purposes, with Mr. Lynch (Acting Chairman) in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Kline) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through
page 25, line 6.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would like to use my time and recognize the
gentleman from South Carolina for a colloquy.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the ranking member for your work on
this bill.
Two weeks ago the House passed the H-Prize Act of 2007. The H-Prize
was overwhelmingly supported here in the House with a vote of 408-8,
and last year 416-6. The H-Prize is a nonbureaucratic way for
government to achieve its goal of harnessing America's entrepreneurial
spirit to tackle our energy challenges. The best part is, if no one
wins the government doesn't have to pay.
We need $6 million, Mr. Chairman, to fund the H-Prize at its
inception. Of that amount, $1 million would be used to fund a prize for
advancements in components or systems related to hydrogen storage, $4
million would be used to fund a prize for development of prototypes of
hydrogen-powered vehicles or other hydrogen-based products, and $1
million would be used for administration of the prize competitions.
The Secretary of Energy was granted authorization for creating prizes
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The H-Prize gives structure to this
prize authority in accordance with recommendations from industry,
academia, government and venture capitalists.
I would ask the chairman if he would work with Mr. Lipinski, the
gentleman from Illinois, and me to provide funding for the H-Prize as
we move forward in conference with the Senate.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman and Mr.
Lipinski's request for funding for this very worthwhile program, and
certainly look forward to working with him as well as the gentleman
from Illinois as we go to conference.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Departmental Administration

(including transfer of funds)

For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
not to exceed $5,000, $304,782,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $2,390,000 shall be available for
necessary administrative expenses to carry out the loan
guarantee program under title XVII of Public Law 109-58, plus
such additional amounts as necessary to cover increases in
the estimated amount of cost of work for others
notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31
U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That such increases in cost
of work are offset by revenue increases of the same or
greater amount, to remain available until expended: Provided
further, That moneys received by the Department for
miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $161,818,000 in
fiscal year 2008 may be retained and used for operating
expenses within this account, and may remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238,
notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided
further, That fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h) of
Public Law 109-58 shall be credited as offsetting collections
to this account: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of miscellaneous
revenues received during 2008, and any related appropriated
receipt account balances remaining from prior years'
miscellaneous revenues, so as to result in a final fiscal
year 2008 appropriation from the general fund estimated at
not more than $142,964,000.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Space

Mr. SPACE. 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. 4 offered by Mr. Space:
Page 25, line 14, after the second dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 19, after the dollar amount insert
``(increase by $30,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The chairman recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. SPACE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering this bipartisan amendment with
Congressman Aderholt to restore funding for the ARC, Appalachian
Regional Commission, to $65 million in this bill. This amendment brings
the Commission's funding up so that it's equal to the President's
request in the previous year's funding level.
The Appalachian Regional Commission is very important to my district
and many other districts from New York to Mississippi. The Appalachian
Regional Commission is a model for Federal economic development
initiatives, and has been a responsible steward of the Federal funds it
has received over the years. For example, in fiscal year 2006, across
all investment areas, each dollar of ARC funding was matched by $3.14
in non-ARC public project funding, and each ARC dollar invested
leveraged $11.55 in private investment in ARC projects over time. This
restoration of funds will be offset by a $30 million reduction to the
Department of Energy's administrative account.
I understand that the Appropriations Committee must make difficult
decisions this year. However, over the last 10 years, funding for the
ARC has remained level, at around $65 million, and the region continues
to receive less Federal assistance per capita than the rest of the
country. Additionally, the House of Representatives had voted to
authorize the ARC at levels much higher than $65 million.
The 410-county region still faces a complex set of economic and
social challenges, and will need continued support from Congress.
Without basic infrastructure, economic development and improvements in
the overall quality of life, the Appalachian region will continue to
lag well behind the rest of the Nation.
I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment to restore
funding for the commission to levels equal with the President's request
and the current funding level for this program.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Congressman
Space's amendment, which is of course funding for the ARC, Appalachian
Regional Commission, in this year's Energy and Water appropriations
bill.
Many Americans may not be aware that this was a program that was
established back in 1965. ARC was created to address the persistent
poverty and the growing economic despair of the Appalachian region,
which is an area that extends from southern New York to northeast
Mississippi. At that time in 1965, one out of every three Appalachians
lived in poverty. Per capita income was 23 percent lower than the U.S.
average, and high unemployment and harsh living conditions had, in the
1950s, forced more than 2 million people in that area to leave their
homes and seek work in other regions.
Even today, ongoing changes in declining sectors of the economy, such
as

[[Page H6758]]

manufacturing and textiles, exacerbated by globalization, changes in
technology, and the recent downturn in the economy have hit this region
very, very hard. It has threatened to reverse a lot of the economic
gains that were made in these communities over the past several years.
For an area that has suffered economically for so long, we can't allow
this to happen.
By funding the ARC at least at last year's level, $65 million, we
will ensure that the people and the businesses of Appalachia have the
knowledge, have the skills and the access to telecommunications and the
technology to compete in a technology-based economy.
As has been mentioned here by Congressman Space, this restoration of
funds will be offset by $30 million for the Department of Energy's
administrative account. ARC has been a responsible steward for the
Federal funds that it has received over the past several years. For
example, in fiscal year 2006, across all investment areas each dollar
of ARC funding was matched by $3.14 in non-ARC public project funding,
and each ARC dollar invested leveraged $11.55 in private investment in
ARC projects over time.
The 410-county region still faces a complex set of issues. However,
this program has made a difference, and we are seeing results.
Over the last 10 years, funding for the ARC has remained level at $65
million. And the region continues to receive less Federal assistance
per capita than the rest of the country. Additionally, in the past, the
House of Representatives has voted to authorize the ARC levels at the
higher level of $65 million.
I would like to thank Congressman Space for his assistance in this
program, and also Chairman Visclosky for his attention to this matter.
Mr. SPACE. I thank the gentleman from Alabama and would yield 1
additional minute to the Congresswoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. I want to thank Mr. Space for offering his amendment to
something that I believe in very much, and that is more funding for the
Appalachian Regional Commission.
The ARC encompasses all 55 counties of the State of West Virginia and
is an important resource to the lower economic communities across
Appalachia. Some of the good news is, since the ARC was created,
poverty in the region has dropped from 31 percent to 13 percent, and
more adults have high school diplomas. The percentage rate has risen to
70 percent. Over 400 rural primary health care facilities have been
built. And in my district, three of the counties of my district have
recently been removed from the list of economically distressed
counties. We have already seen that ARC is a solid investment for our
government by leveraging both private and public dollars.
The Appalachian region still lags behind the Nation in water and
wastewater facilities, health care and poverty. And the ARC is a major
part of continuing to address these challenges in my district and
across the region. Now is not the time to cut ARC funding. This
amendment will simply bring ARC funds back up to last year's level and
the President's requested level of $65 million.
I look forward to bipartisan support of this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
gentleman, Mr. Space, to express my appreciation for the concern he has
for his constituency, as well as the gentlelady from West Virginia, and
my colleague on the committee, Mr. Aderholt, who also raised an
amendment in the full committee.
Again, I appreciate their work and their concern for the people in
economic development of not only their individual constituencies, but
their region, and certainly would pledge to continue to work with them
to address their concerns.
Having said that, I would ask my colleague from Ohio to withdraw his
amendment.

{time} 1300

Mr. SPACE. Mr. Chairman, with that commitment to work for the
concerns of those in Appalachia, I would, at this point, withdraw the
amendment and continue to work with my colleagues on this important
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Foxx

Ms. FOXX. 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. 18 offered by Ms. Foxx:
Page 25, line 14, after the second dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $27,950,000)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding for the
Department of Energy Departmental Administration to the fiscal year
2007 level. This amendment would save $28 million, reducing the account
from $304.782 million to $276.832 million, the fiscal year 2007 enacted
level.
The Energy and Water appropriations bill is already $1.1 billion over
the President's request. This amendment would reduce the funding in the
Departmental Administration account, putting it at last year's enacted
level. The bill provides a 10 percent increase for DOE's Departmental
Administration account.
There has been at least $105.5 billion in new Federal spending over
the next 5 years authorized by the House Democratic leadership this
year. In enacting the largest tax increase in American history, the
Democrats' budget allows for $28 billion in spending over that of the
President's budget request.
This amendment is designed to save the taxpayers almost $30 million,
just a small dent in the unnecessary increases in Federal spending this
year, which is being fueled by huge tax increases. We've constantly
heard on the floor, around this bill especially, the problem of
increased rules and regulations. What happens when you have additional
administrators? What you are going to get are more rules and more
regulations.
We are constantly adding administrative costs to all of the Federal
Government. I think we can make a very small dent, but an important
dent, in our deficit spending by cutting these funds. This should not
hurt at all the administration of the Department and the administration
of programs.
If we were going to put in additional funding anywhere, we ought to
put that money in for direct services and not for administration. We
hear more and more about too much administration in the education
field, but I think we have it all over the Federal Government, State
governments, local governments.
We are talking about deficits, not surpluses. If we had a huge
surplus in this country, we might be wanting to talk about spending
additional money. But we don't need to be doing that. This will benefit
the taxpayers all over this country. And what we need to do is to cut
spending, not increase spending. That is what we heard all last year
from the majority party. I am surprised that we aren't continuing to
hear it this year. When they are in charge, they want to spend lots of
money.
So, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this,
which would save $28 million and make a small dent in our deficit.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce DOE's Office
of Administration by over $27 million. The bill provides $304 million,
a decreased amount under the President's request.
The Departmental Administration account funds the guts of the
Department; the chief financial officer, human resources, the general
counsel, the chief information officer, all are integral to the
functioning of the $25 billion operation of the Department of Energy.

[[Page H6759]]

What I am particularly concerned about relative to the gentlewoman's
amendment is that the bill has initiatives that would not be funded as
a result of the reductions.
There are funds provided in this bill for additional legal counsel to
expedite energy efficiency standards for appliances. There has been a
significant accumulation of backlog for this work. We can expedite this
work and save energy in this country.
The bill also funds a review by the National Academy of Public
Administration for the contracting in human resources process.
Mentioned yesterday during debate, the Department of Energy has been on
a high-risk list with the GAO for 17 years. The purpose of the
subcommittee of having the National Academy of Public Administration
come in is to get DOE off so that they stop wasting and mismanaging
money. And I would hate to see that function not occur because of the
gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge rejection of it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's
amendment. And while they say miracles never cease, this is living
proof. Despite my frustrations with the leadership of the Department of
Energy, and they are great, I am rising to oppose the gentlewoman's
motion to cut the DOE's Departmental Administration and make a case for
why they need the level requested by the President.
For too long, DOE has been stuck in a quagmire of mismanagement,
operating devoid of leadership and vision. But cutting funds that are
critical to the successful management of our Nation's energy programs,
especially at such a critical time in terms of our energy security, I
think is a foolish time to do that. A cut of close to $30 million to
this account will cost far more in terms of our Nation's energy needs
than the good message it might send.
So don't be misled by the gentlewoman's argument that cutting $28
million in discretionary funds in this account will reduce the deficit.
It might. But I think it will do the opposite. It will undermine DOE's
efforts to oversee climate change research, improve the use of
renewable energy, and provide national scientific leadership.
But DOE, I hope, is listening today and gets the message. They need
to get their act together, and I agree with the fact that they don't
have their act together. But I don't think this is the way to get their
attention at this moment. But if I thought it was, I would agree with
the gentlewoman, because I believe the intent here is more than just to
cut the deficit. It is to wake them up to get some reasonable
management in that quagmire that is over there and just answers to the
other body's needs all the time for additional spending. So it is
unfortunate, but I do oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would yield back my time and urge a
``no'' vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. 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 gentlewoman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, $47,732,000, to remain available until expended.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Matheson

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Matheson:
Page 26, line 17, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy is currently
managing 206 ongoing projects and, unfortunately, the agency has a long
record of inadequate management and oversight of contracts. DOE's
failure to hold contractors accountable led the GAO to designate DOE
contract administration and project management as a high-risk area for
waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement way back in 1990. Although DOE
has made some oversight improvements in the intervening years, GAO
noted in reports completed this year, 17 years after the 1990 report,
that major problems exist in contracting management at the agency.
One quick example: On a project started in 2004 to demonstrate an
alternative waste treatment technology at DOE's Hanford site, DOE
officials decided to accelerate the project's schedule. As a result,
the project was initiated without using key project management tools,
such as an independent review of the cost and schedule baseline. After
the project experienced significant schedule and technical problems and
the estimated cost more than tripled to about $230 million, DOE began
requiring that the project be managed consistent with its project
management requirements.
Furthermore, on four additional projects, estimated to cost over $100
million each, cost and schedule information was not being reported into
DOE's project tracking system, resulting in less senior management
oversight.
My amendment would simply require DOE's Inspector General to conduct
a root-cause analysis to fully understand the causes of its contract
and management problems, as has been recommended by the GAO.
I encourage everyone to support this amendment as a necessary first
step in order to better address the contract management challenges
faced by the DOE.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment. I
understand his concern, as I and Mr. Hobson have grave concerns about
the department's record on contracting and project management as well.
This bill requires the department to develop an action plan due to
Congress that will get DOE off the GAO high-risk list for their
contract management performance as soon as possible, as I indicated in
the previous debate, where they have been since 1990; follow its own
guidelines in Management Order 413.3 for project management; and
contract with the National Academy of Public Administration for a
review of the departmental contracting processes, which have been a
choke point of getting work done.
Again, I would be pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment and the
record that is established for the department to follow through on
GAO's recommendation to examine the root causes of poor contract
management.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I wish to
associate myself with the chairman's comments. I have no objection to
the amendment.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

National Nuclear Security Administration

Weapons Activities

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense weapons 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, $5,879,137,000 to
remain available until expended.

[[Page H6760]]

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense, defense nuclear nonproliferation 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, $1,683,646,000, to remain available until
expended.

Naval Reactors

For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval
reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or
otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment,
facilities, and facility expansion, $808,219,000, to remain
available until expended.

Office of the Administrator

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Administrator
in the National Nuclear Security Administration, including
official reception and representation expenses not to exceed
$12,000, $415,879,000, to remain available until expended.

Defense Environmental Cleanup

(including transfer of funds)

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
environmental cleanup 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 three passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only, $5,766,561,000, to remain available until expended, of
which $463,000,000 shall be transferred to the ``Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund''.

Other Defense Activities

(including transfer of funds)

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense,
other defense activities, and classified 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 twelve
passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $604,313,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the
funds provided under this heading in Public Law 109-103,
$4,900,000 are transferred to ``Weapons Activities'' for
planning activities associated with special nuclear material
consolidation.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the amendment
at this point in the reading?
There was no objection
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico:
Page 27, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $192,123,000)''.
Page 28, line 2, after the second dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $192,123,000)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.

{time} 1315

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. First let me thank the chairman and ranking
member for their work on this bill, which provides a bold vision for
moving this country forward along a path of clean energy independence
and limits spending on new nuclear weapons.
My district has a particular interest in this bill, as I represent
the scientists, employees, and community of Los Alamos National
Laboratory, also known as LANL. The scientists at LANL are the best in
the world and they work with a commitment to both national security and
the pursuit of scientific knowledge. In recent years, there have been
administrative and managerial difficulties, which we all agree are
unacceptable. Nevertheless, the mission of the lab and the workers are
the two things that I will always fiercely defend.
Stockpile stewardship, the core mission at LANL, certifies to the
President every year that the nuclear stockpile is safe, reliable and
accurate. My amendment will help ensure the stability of that mission
and thus the rigor of our Nation's security, while also building a
bridge to the future.
It will restore funding to the President's request for three specific
areas, including upgrades to the Road Runner computer; the readiness
and technical base and facilities at LANL; and the scientific campaign.
In so doing, I propose to reduce spending in the office of the NNSA
Administrator.
The Road Runner computer upgrades will increase LANL's supercomputing
capability and keep the lab's ability to conduct computer simulated
weapons testing at state-of-the-art. Additionally, the capacity can
also be used for advanced non-weapons materials research, and thus
broaden the scientific capability of the lab. The amendment restores
proposed reductions in Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities at
LANL, which would grind to a halt any safety improvements in the lab's
infrastructure.
Finally, the science campaign is at the heart of stockpile
stewardship. It sustains our Nation's capabilities and understanding of
nuclear weapons, which is essential to protecting our Nation. It also
allows us to keep our treaty commitments and not perform nuclear
testing.
I believe that the cuts in this bill to our Nation's premier national
security laboratory hurt the core mission and inhibit the laboratory's
ability to transition toward the necessary work on energy independence.
LANL must prepare for the future, which includes diversification of
its mission. As Chairman Visclosky has recognized in this legislation,
securing our Nation's energy independence is one of the most critical
areas of our national security. LANL has an important role to play in
this regard.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment, and would hope that at the end of this debate he
consider the withdrawal of his amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for Mr.
Udall and also appreciate the fact that he has made a significant
contribution to the full Appropriations Committee and also understand
the circumstances that he is presented with.
Contrary to what I think the belief of some Members are, we have made
cuts in this bill, but they were thoughtful cuts, given a number of
considerations. I would point out that the means by which the gentleman
is trying to secure additional weapons money would cut the
Administrator's office and potentially terminate most of the Nation's
nonproliferation programs.
The nuclear nonproliferation programs are one of the few activities
at the Department of Energy that are staffed, managed and run by
Federal employees. In the end, Federal employees tend to be generally
younger professionals with fewer years of public service and would bear
the brunt of any Federal reduction in force.
Secondly, I wish that our national labs, which are treasures and do
great work, would also be as adamant and as concerned about their
security as they are about their budget line. I would ask to submit
additional materials in the Record, but would point out we had serious
security breaches at Los Alamos in December of 1999, June of 2000,
November of 2003, May of 2004, July of 2004, in 2005, in 2006. There
was an incident in January of 2007 that made Time Magazine. This has
got to stop.
But the breach that causes me and should cause every Member here the
most heartburn is what happened to a gentleman by the name of Shawn
Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter worked at Los Alamos, Mr. Carpenter was
concerned about security at Los Alamos, and Mr. Carpenter went to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation to express his concern. He did not go
to a local newspaper. He went to the FBI, and he was terminated. There
was a trial relative to that wrongful termination. And I would point
out that the gentleman who fired Mr. Carpenter, and he subsequently won
a judgment of $4.6 million for wrongful termination, got a bonus.

[[Page H6761]]

He got a bonus after he fired Mr. Carpenter, and Mr. Carpenter went to
the FBI to protect the secrets of this Nation as far as our nuclear
security.
The third concern I have is some of these moneys would find their way
back into the proposal made by the administration that we have
eliminated in this bill for a new nuclear weapon. As we have
extensively pointed out in the committee report language, since the
termination of the Cold War, since regional conflicts such as Kosovo,
since 9/11, we have not developed a new nuclear strategy. This is not a
time to build a new nuclear weapon.
We have significant cost overruns and time overruns on three
buildings we were told were needed for stockpile stewardship. None of
them are done. All of them are over budget. Now let's take a turn in
the road. I am adamantly opposed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition also to the
gentleman's amendment. This is not personal between me and the
gentleman, and I hope it wouldn't be when I get over too, because I am
really opposed to this amendment, and I am really in support of the
chairman on this, because this is something we have worked on for a
long period of time.
I know the administration and some Members, those from New Mexico,
are not pleased with the cuts to the weapons program. I have heard from
the other body, and they may claim these funding reductions somehow
threaten our national security.
I also recognize it is politically convenient to move money from a
so-called bureaucracy in Washington to what is portrayed as a field-
level purpose. Sorry, folks, but I don't buy either of these arguments,
and I strongly believe this bill puts our nuclear weapons programs in
the proper perspective.
I have been a member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for the
past 5 years, and I have personally visited every single nuclear
weapons lab, plant and site in DOE's complex, and I honestly can't tell
you how much our national security is protected, whether we fund the
nuclear weapons account at $6.5 billion, $6 billion, or even $5.5
billion. And I certainly can't tell you what benefit we will gain by
adding $192 million back to the weapons program and devastating NSA's
management office, as the gentleman proposes.
I also sit on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, as does my
chairman, and we both are all too aware of the funding shortfalls in
the conventional defense area to believe that nuclear weapons are
somehow a higher security priority.
So after years of looking at this from virtually every angle, I can
tell you definitively that what we need is a national strategy for
nuclear weapons and a clearly defined set of military requirements that
is derived from that strategy. Then, and only then, will NNSA be able
to lay out what a modern weapons complex, capability of producing a
specified number of reliable replacement warheads will look like.
In the meantime, we have many nuclear nonproliferation priorities
that need to be addressed. This will have real security benefits today,
not at some weapons design lab tomorrow.
This bill balances our national security needs by making the prudent
recommendations on weapons we have discussed and by putting an
additional $398 billion above the President's request towards defense
nuclear nonproliferation activities. These funds will play down the
risk of nuclear smuggling by improving programs such as the elimination
of weapons-grade plutonium production; international nuclear materials
production and cooperation; second line of defense and cooperation;
MegaPorts; MegaAirports; and global coordination among domestic
security agencies, such as DHS and foreign governments.
Furthermore, these additional funds will support the implementation
of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank, a priority for security experts
ranging from National Security Advisor Steve Hadley to former Senator
Sam Nunn to the leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Getting our national security priorities right is what this bill is
about, and it is a rational approach I wholeheartedly support. But
let's call it what it is. This amendment isn't really about national
security. It is all about jobs at these DOE weapons facilities.
In particular, the Los Alamos National Laboratory is in the
gentleman's State of New Mexico. This lab has held a preeminent place
at the Federal trough for years, and now fears the loss of jobs because
of this bill's recommended funding levels. Los Alamos has the largest
number of employees of any DOE field site, with employees who receive
the highest level of compensation, and a lab that has the highest
overhead rate of any DOE operation. All told, Los Alamos receives close
to $2 billion a year from our bill, plus additional reimbursement of
work from other agencies. And I cannot tell you what we get in return
for that investment.
I do know that Los Alamos has chronic management problems, and I can
read a long litany of security failures, safety accidents and costs and
schedule overruns brought to you by the 9,000 highly paid folks at Los
Alamos. Don't let anyone tell you that these problems are a thing of
the past. DOE just informed us this week of yet another security
screwup at Los Alamos, and this is after a number of others.
Given this track record, do we really believe adding another $192
million will improve security? I would argue our national security
might actually be improved by cutting 1,800 jobs from a facility that
can't seem to manage sensitive information. We would have a lot less
people to watch.
The bottom line is that gutting the office of the NNSA Administrator
by reducing its funding by almost half will undermine any chance of the
NNSA actually managing the weapons and nuclear nonproliferation
programs. Does the gentleman expect us to believe that jobs in New
Mexico are more important than the overall national management of these
sensitive national security programs?
So I am, you can tell, opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I
believe the priorities are misguided. The weapons program has no clear
strategy of a way forward. And this bill report addresses the
shortcomings with its prudent funding recommendations and bold
direction.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this ill-conceived amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), chairman of the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee of Energy and Commerce.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment, which would fund new nuclear weapons development by taking
$193 million from the National Nuclear Security Administration
nonproliferation account.
NNSA plays a very important role in helping us to secure nuclear
weapons, ``loose nukes,'' as we call them in committee, around the
world. The program helps secure nuclear material in Russia and
elsewhere.
This funding includes $412 million for the installation of radiation
portal monitors at over 200 border crossings in Russia, the Baltic
States and the Caucasus region, $293 million more than the President's
budget.
Rather than commit billions of dollars to manufacturing another
generation of nuclear weapons, our existing nuclear arsenal can be
sustained using the life extension program managed by NNSA. If we cut
$193 million from it, there will be no way we can maintain this life
extension program.
The JASON Report, a panel of independent nuclear weapons experts,
reported last year that the existing plutonium pit will remain reliable
for 100 years, far longer than the 45 or 60 years.
We don't need new weapons. Let's put the money where it will do the
most good, to secure ``loose nukes'' around the world. Support the
chairman in this position, and do not support the Udall amendment.

{time} 1330

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, in closing, first of all, the

[[Page H6762]]

NNSA is the problem, not the scientists. NNSA was put there to bring a
better security situation, and security has deteriorated since they are
there, and that is why I take the money away from the NNSA
Administration.
Secondly, I know we can't legislate on an appropriations bill, but I
think it would be very appropriate to take a look at the role that NNSA
should play in this whole situation, if not return to the Department of
Energy managing the nuclear complex. They did a better job.
The vast majority of scientists at Los Alamos work on a broad variety
of subjects, not only weapons activities. They stand ready to conduct
the research that is most essential to our Nation. However, we need to
make sure that these top scientists can do their jobs and have the
support they need to work on other missions.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this amendment that
will restore a portion of the fundmg which is critical to maintaining
our commitment to safety and security of our nuclear stewardship
responsibilities.
I deeply regret that the Majority has decided to cut these programs
and irrevocably harm our nuclear weapon programs and fail to maintain
our nuclear stockpile. Our responsibility is to protect the American
people and ensure that our weapons programs operate in a responsible
and secure manner.
These important programs are our national deterrent against rogue
nations who would threaten us with weapons of mass destruction. In
addition, these cuts will erode our non-proliferation efforts
worldwide, as our allies would have to consider expanding their own
nuclear arsenals to make up for our reductions.
The cuts proposed today will cut nearly 40 percent of the funding for
our Nuclear weapons programs operated at Los Alamos National
Laboratory. I would ask the sponsors of these cuts if they believe that
the threats from rogue states and aggressive dictators have reduced by
40 percent? If not, why are we cutting our ability to defend ourselves
by 40 percent? These cuts will damage our ability to retain good
scientists, preserve the knowledge base of our laboratory, and our
preparedness to respond to our future nuclear needs.
In addition, these cuts decimate the nation's Stockpile Stewardship
Program. Since we have stopped testing nuclear weapons, our country
relies on Los Alamos to ensure that our strategic weapon capabilities
are safe, reliable and secure. Failure do so abdicates our
responsibility to the protect the American people.
These programs are critical to the mission of Los Alamos and critical
to America. We shouldn't just simply fold up our tent and allow these
programs to be deeply cut or nearly eliminated and I urge all my
colleagues to stand up and support this amendment and furthermore
support restoring the full funding to these important programs.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HOBSON. 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 New Mexico
will be postponed.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Rogers) for a colloquy.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Hobson) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, in the report accompanying H.R. 2641, the subcommittee
commends the nuclear physics research community for its efforts to
rescope the next generation rare isotope research facility in light of
the current fiscal constraints. However, the report contends that ``the
rare isotope beams will involve modifications to existing accelerators
rather than the construction of a new rare isotope accelerator, RIA.''
As you know, National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, located
at Michigan State University, is the leading rare isotope facility in
the United States and needs an upgrade to stay on the leading edge of
rare isotope science. Michigan State's upgrade proposal includes the
reuse of several major components of the existing NSCL. However, it
does not intent to use its existing cyclotron accelerators, as they
would not be suitable for the beam strengths contemplated by the new
facility. As a result, if one were to interpret this language
literally, Michigan State would not be eligible for any potential DOE
funded facility since it is not proposing ``modifications to existing
accelerators.''
Mr. Chairman, I am assuming this is a problem created by ambiguous
wording and does not represent a substantive shift in the position of
the subcommittee. Would you concur with my assumption, sir?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, as a Notre Dame grad, I would like to
interject myself into this colloquy. I thank the gentleman from
Michigan for his interest in this area.
The gentleman is correct. The subcommittee's objection was to praise
the nuclear physics communities adaptiveness in adjusting its
facilities plan to our current budgetary realities. It was not meant in
any way to define or alter the scope of the proposed facility or limit
Michigan State's ability to compete. The subcommittee remains
steadfastly committed to ensuring that DOE user facilities are subject
to full and open competition and will monitor the process very closely
to make sure that all potential competitors are treated fairly by DOE.
Again, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and bringing this matter
up.
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I want to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee for his work on this issue. You have given me a whole
renewed look at Notre Dame University.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the
acquisition of real property or facility construction or
expansion, $292,046,000, to remain available until expended.

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Bonneville Power Administration Fund

Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund,
established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $1,500. During fiscal year 2008, no new direct
loan obligations may be made.

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of electric power and
energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary
services pursuant to section 5 of the Flood Control Act of
1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southeastern power
area, $6,463,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to
$48,413,000 collected by the Southeastern Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures.

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, for construction and acquisition of transmission
lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, and for
administrative expenses, including official reception and
representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 in
carrying out section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16
U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southwestern power area,
$30,442,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $35,000,000
collected by the Southwestern Power Administration pursuant
to the Flood Control Act to recover purchase power and
wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as
offsetting collections, to remain available until expended
for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures.

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration

For carrying out the functions authorized by title III,
section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7152), and other related activities including conservation
and renewable resources programs as authorized, including the
operation, maintenance, and purchase through transfer,
exchange, or sale of one helicopter for replacement only, and
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $1,500;

[[Page H6763]]

$201,030,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$191,094,000 shall be derived from the Department of the
Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That of the amount
herein appropriated, $7,167,000 is for deposit into the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account pursuant to
title IV of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
Adjustment Act of 1992: Provided further, That
notwithstanding the provision of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to
$258,702,000 collected by the Western Area Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 and
the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to recover purchase power
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as
offsetting collections, to remain available until expended
for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures.

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams,
$2,500,000, to remain available until expended, and to be
derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance
Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in
section 423 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and
representation expenses not to exceed $3,000, $255,425,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$255,425,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and
other services and collections in fiscal year 2008 shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the sum herein appropriated from the general fund shall be
reduced as revenues are received during fiscal year 2008 so
as to result in a final fiscal year 2008 appropriation from
the general fund estimated at not more than $0.

General Provisions--Department of Energy

Sec. 301. Contract Competition.--(a) None of the funds in
this or any other appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008 or
any previous fiscal year may be used to make payments for a
noncompetitive management and operating contract, or a
contract for environmental remediation or waste management in
excess of $100,000,000 in annual funding at a current or
former management and operating contract site or facility, or
award a significant extension or expansion to an existing
management and operating contract, or other contract covered
by this section, unless such contract is awarded using
competitive procedures or the Secretary of Energy grants, on
a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation.
The Secretary may not delegate the authority to grant such a
waiver.
(b) Within 30 days of formally notifying an incumbent
contractor that the Secretary intends to grant such a waiver,
the Secretary shall submit to the Subcommittees on Energy and
Water Development of the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate a report notifying
the Subcommittees of the waiver and setting forth, in
specificity, the substantive reasons why the Secretary
believes the requirement for competition should be waived for
this particular award.
Sec. 302. Unfunded Requests for Proposals.--None of the
funds appropriated by this Act may be used to prepare or
initiate requests for proposals for a program if the program
has not been funded by Congress.
Sec. 303. Unexpended Balances.--The unexpended balances of
prior appropriations provided for activities in this Act may
be available to the same appropriation accounts for such
activities established pursuant to this title. Available
balances may be merged with funds in the applicable
established accounts and thereafter may be accounted for as
one fund for the same time period as originally enacted.
Sec. 304. Bonneville Power Administration Service
Territory.--None of the funds in this or any other Act for
the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration may
be used to enter into any agreement to perform energy
efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville
service territory, with the exception of services provided
internationally, including services provided on a
reimbursable basis, unless the Administrator certifies in
advance that such services are not available from private
sector businesses.
Sec. 305. User Facilities.--When the Department of Energy
makes a user facility available to universities or other
potential users, or seeks input from universities or other
potential users regarding significant characteristics or
equipment in a user facility or a proposed user facility, the
Department shall ensure broad public notice of such
availability or such need for input to universities and other
potential users. When the Department of Energy considers the
participation of a university or other potential user as a
formal partner in the establishment or operation of a user
facility, the Department shall employ full and open
competition in selecting such a partner. For purposes of this
section, the term ``user facility'' includes, but is not
limited to: (1) a user facility as described in section
2203(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13503(a)(2)); (2) a National Nuclear Security Administration
Defense Programs Technology Deployment Center/User Facility;
and (3) any other Departmental facility designated by the
Department as a user facility.
Sec. 306. Intelligence Activities.--Funds appropriated by
this or any other Act, or made available by the transfer of
funds in this Act, for intelligence activities are deemed to
be specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of
section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
414) during fiscal year 2008 until the enactment of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.
Sec. 307. Laboratory Directed Research and Development.--Of
the funds made available by the Department of Energy for
activities at government-owned, contractor-operator operated
laboratories funded in this Act, the Secretary may authorize
a specific amount, not to exceed 8 percent of such funds, to
be used by such laboratories for laboratory-directed research
and development: Provided, That the Secretary may also
authorize a specific amount not to exceed 3 percent of such
funds, to be used by the plant manager of a covered nuclear
weapons production plant or the manager of the Nevada Site
office for plant or site-directed research and development
funding.
Sec. 308. Contractor Pension Benefits.--None of the funds
made available in title III of this Act shall be used for
implementation of the Department of Energy Order N 351.1
modifying contractor employee pension and medical benefits
policy.
Sec. 309. International Nuclear Fuel Bank.--Of the funds
made available in the first paragraph under the heading
``Atomic Energy Defense Activities--Other Defense
Activities'' in chapter 2 of title I of division B of Public
Law 105-277, $100,000,000 shall be available until expended,
subject to authorization, for the contribution of the United
States to create a low-enriched uranium stockpile for an
International Nuclear Fuel Bank supply of nuclear fuel for
peaceful means under the International Atomic Energy Agency.

TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission

For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized
by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965,
notwithstanding section 14704 of title 40, United States
Code, and, for necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman
and the alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission, for
payment of the Federal share of the administrative expenses
of the Commission, including services as authorized by
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, and hire
passenger motor vehicles, $35,000,000, to remain available
until expended.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. 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. 17 offered by Mr. Neugebauer:
Page 37, strike lines 9 through 19.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike funding for
the Appalachian Regional Commission. This commission is a perfect
example of Ronald Reagan's belief that the nearest thing to eternal
life we will ever see on this Earth is a government program.
Established more than 40 years ago, this commission has evolved into
an inequitable and duplicative Federal program, yet it receives $35
million in next year's budget.
Although most of ARC funding is spent building State roads, the
agency also spends tax dollars on water programs, housing projects,
business development, and health care.
However, this funding is only available to 13 States. In other words,
this is a bracketed bill. The ARC is a redundant layer of bureaucracy.
Several other Federal agencies have similar missions as the ARC. For
example, an Appalachian community applying for an economic development
grant would be eligible to use 20 other programs across five other
agencies and receive funding for the exact same purposes. For every ARC
program, it is duplicated by another Federal program.
According to the Department of Agriculture's Web site, USDA's Rural
Development Agency supports such essential public facilities and
services as water and sewer systems, housing,

[[Page H6764]]

health clinics and promotes economic development. In other words, under
the current Department of Agriculture programs, these communities could
apply for these grants instead of having a separate bracketed amount of
money.
At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there is a rural
housing and economic development program within the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
Departments of Transportation and Commerce, for example, and even the
Department of Defense, have programs whose mission is to help rural
communities.
Therefore, if we were to eliminate the ARC, applicants could still
apply for countless other grants from other agencies that are already
providing funding for rural communities.
I represent a rural community, and so I understand the unique
challenges facing rural America today. However, as we work to help
communities overcome their challenges, we should do it in such a way
that we are not wasting taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, there is a role and
a need for the ARC to assist distressed counties in Appalachia with
local economic development and to provide infrastructure requirements.
Of the original 223 distressed counties, 74 remain in that category;
and clearly the mission of the ARC has not yet been fully realized. The
fact is the committee did reduce the administration's request for this
account by $30 million and has targeted all of the funds in this bill
for those distressed counties. So I would be in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hobson).
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to
eliminate funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. I have been
against the Appalachian Regional Commission since I was on the Budget
Committee in 1995. But I do appreciate the chairman's cutting the
funding back because we always have a problem dealing with the Senate
on this issue.
But let me tell you, for all of the heartburn we have had over
congressional earmarks and administration earmarks, I would point out
that funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission basically provides
earmarks designated by the Governors of 13 Appalachian States. If we
are cutting our earmarks, then we should be reducing these as well. The
one thing we should not do is delegate our decision-making to the
authority of these Governors, no matter how well intended the purposes
are.
And I have to tell you, we have been throwing this money into these
counties for all these years, and they are still at these levels. It
doesn't do any good. It just goes down the tube. We should do programs
that really help the quality of life in these regions and help them
move out, rather than doing these little projects that keep them in the
poverty level. So I support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I was going to point out exactly the
point that the gentleman made about the earmarks. There is $300,000 for
central Pennsylvania's largest kitchen, $20,000 to renovate an
abandoned hospital for a possible visual arts center, $7,000 to place
16 poster-size vignettes in culturally significant areas in
Connellsville, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, economic development is important to all America. It is
important to rural America; but what is also important to America is
fiscal responsibility, keeping taxes lower.
If we keep spending money the way we are spending money now, we are
going to have to raise taxes. In fact, the Democratic budget passed
what is going to be the largest tax increase in American history. The
government doesn't have an income problem; the government has a
spending problem. When you look at the revenues over the last few years
because we lowered taxes and let the American people keep their money
and let the American people invest and let small businesses create jobs
all across America, what happened? Well, the economy got better. What
happened to tax revenues? Tax revenues are increasing at a fairly
substantial rate.
What we have to do is cut spending so spending is growing at a slower
rate than the revenues. That is the only way we are ever going to be
able to balance our budget. I urge support of my amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, despite the eloquence and persuasiveness
of my ranking member and good friend, Mr. Hobson, I remain opposed and
would ask the membership to vote against the amendment.
Mr. SPACE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
For four decades now, the Appalachian Regional Commission has worked
to bring Appalachia to economic parity with the rest of the country.
The statistics are devastating. Twenty percent of Appalachian
households still do not have access to community water systems. Sixty-
two percent of Appalachian counties have a higher unemployment rate
than the national average.
I want to make one thing clear. The Commission's programs are NOT
duplicative. They complement Federal activities and extend the reach of
those programs into the most challenging parts of Appalachia.
The Commission acts as a key financial partner in attracting private
and non-profit investment to the region. In Fiscal Year 2006, every
dollar of ARC funding leveraged $3.14 in other public funding and
$11.55 in private investment.
The modest amount of money we spend on this program is fiscally
responsible and enormously beneficial to the taxpayer. The President's
own Budget requests that the Commission's funding level continue at $65
million.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. 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.

{time} 1345

The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, $22,499,000, to remain available
until expended.

Delta Regional Authority

For necessary expenses of the Delta Regional Authority and
to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta
Regional Authority Act of 2000, notwithstanding sections
382C(b)(2), 382F(d), and 382M(b) of said Act, $6,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

Denali Commission

For expenses of the Denali Commission including the
purchase, construction and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment as necessary and other expenses, $1,800,000, to
remain available until expended, notwithstanding the
limitations contained in section 306(g) of the Denali
Commission Act of 1998.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. 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. 16 offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
Page 38, strike lines 7 through 13.

[[Page H6765]]

lowest taxes as a percentage of per capita income of any State in the
country. Also, Alaska is actually a relatively wealthy State in terms
of per capita income.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would simply indicate that I would be happy to
accept the gentlewoman's amendment and if my colleague the ranking
member would have an observation, I would invite him to.
Mr. HOBSON. I am also willing to accept the amendment.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Reclaiming my time, I thank both the gentlemen and
look forward to our efforts to save the American taxpayers $1.8
million.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out
the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, including official representation
expenses (not to exceed $21,000), $925,559,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated herein, $37,250,000 shall be derived from the
Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided further, That revenues from
licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and
collections estimated at $757,720,000 in fiscal year 2008
shall be retained and used for necessary salaries and
expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of
revenues received during fiscal year 2008 so as to result in
a final fiscal year 2008 appropriation estimated at not more
than $167,839,000.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, $8,144,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection
services, and other services and collections estimated at
$7,330,000 in fiscal year 2008 shall be retained and be
available for necessary salaries and expenses in this
account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided further,
That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by the
amount of revenues received during fiscal year 2008 so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2008 appropriation estimated at
not more than $814,000.

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section
5051, $3,621,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
and to remain available until expended.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects

For necessary expenses for the Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects
pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004,
$2,322,000.

TITLE V

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress as described in 18 U.S.C.
1913.
Sec. 502. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in this Act
or any other appropriation Act.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Schmidt

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

Amendment offered by Mrs. Schmidt:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership initiative
for the transfer or storage of spent nuclear fuel or high-
level radioactive waste to any site that is not a site where
facilities for reprocessing of that fuel or waste have been
constructed or are under construction, or used to retain
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste for
permanent storage at such a site where facilities for
reprocessing of fuel or waste have been constructed or are
under construction.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment that I am offering, and plan to withdraw, is based on
legislation I have introduced with Congressmen Wilson and Space, H.R.
2282, the Nuclear Waste Storage Prohibition Act.
Currently, there are 11 sites around our Nation that are under
consideration for hosting one or more facilities related to the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership, called GNEP. It's an initiative that is
being studied as we speak. The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
located in my district in Piketon, Ohio, is one of the 11 sites. The
other sites include locations in Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky,
New Mexico, Illinois, Washington and Idaho. Everyone representing one
of these sites or an area nearby has a strong interest in how this
important initiative proceeds.
The point of my amendment is to ensure that none of these GNEP sites
that have been under consideration only become a de facto storage site
for spent nuclear fuel. My amendment prohibits DOE from using funds to
transfer spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste to any site
unless it is a site where the reprocessing facility for this material
is either under construction or has been completed.
In addition, my amendment also ensures the final end product after
the fuel has been recycled is moved offsite as quickly as possible,
either to the next stage in the nuclear fuel recycling process or to
Yucca Mountain, which remains our Nation's long-term and permanent
storage facility.
DOE has not made any statements to suggest that any of those 11 sites
would ever become a de facto waste storage site. On the contrary, DOE
and this Congress have made clear over the years that the final end
product will be permanently stored at Yucca Mountain. However, based on
feedback from my constituents, who generally speaking are very excited
by the potential opportunities of this initiative, there are some
concerns related to long-term storage. I am sure I am not the only one
who has heard these concerns, and Congress must assure these
communities that their worst fears will never become a reality. This
amendment would help accomplish this goal.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition. I understand the
gentlelady's concern and, with the observation that she is going to
withdraw her amendment, have a number of points to make but will simply
enter those into the Record.
Proceeding with construction of nuclear spent fuel recycling
facilities at this time is premature.
Geologic capacity exists at Yucca Mountain to accommodate much more
high level waste than currently permitted by legislation
Spent fuel recycling is not economically viable given affordable
fresh supplies of uranium fuel
On-site storage of nuclear spent fuel is safe for 50 to 100 years, so
there is no rush, but there could be cost savings from removing spent
fuel from the nine decommissioned nuclear reactor sites.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's withdrawing
of the amendment. At the time this proposal came up, I was the chairman
of the committee and we worked together on this with the current
chairman. GNEP was a proposal that was put out for people to raise
their hand if they were interested in the project. It was never
intended that the project be a permanent disposition site. So I think
your people should understand that it was only an interim site. I would
recommend that the record show that it is

[[Page H6766]]

only an interim site that is intended if they are successful in
receiving a GNEP award.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. I appreciate the ranking member's comments. I would
like to continue to work with you so that we can put some language into
the record that would assure the folks in the 11 States where GNEP is
being pursued that this is indeed an interim storage facility and not a
permanent storage facility.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. 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. 9 offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:

Sec. 503. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 0.5 percent.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment would cut one-half of 1 percent spending from the Energy
and Water appropriations bill. I am offering this amendment to this
bill to make a cut of just one-half percent of the overall funding of
the bill.
With the national debt at an all-time high, Mr. Chairman, of $8.8
trillion, Congress is leaving a very sad legacy for the next
generation. I believe that we in Congress must take responsibility for
this burden by establishing Federal spending priorities and setting
spending caps for some programs and eliminating unnecessary spending
for others. When you look at this amount of money, when you look at
this huge amount that we are spending, I believe that it is very
reasonable to ask for this modest cut. We owe it to the taxpayers whose
money we are spending to make a serious commitment to fiscal
responsibility and we need to exercise fiscal restraint.
The simple truth is that the money we stand here today to spend is
not our own. The funds that we are appropriating come from the hard-
earned incomes of families across this country. The families in my
district in eastern Colorado need money for groceries, to buy gas for
their cars, to educate their children, and I think that when we are
here on this floor talking about this issue, we ought to think about
the families in Colorado and around the Nation that work very hard to
make ends meet.
I know that there are worthy programs in this bill and I commend the
work of the chairman and the ranking member, but I think we need to
realize that this fiscal responsibility is what we should be exercising
right now. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and really to
demonstrate to the American public that we remember where this money
comes from as we spend it and make our decisions here in this Chamber.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong objection to the
gentlelady's amendment and would point out a couple of things. One, as
we stated in opening debate, we very carefully looked at all the
accounts in this bill and, among other things, made cuts in over 57
programs to make sure that funds were available for positive programs
that make a difference in people's lives. One of those areas is in the
area of energy and specifically the high cost of gasoline for consumers
across the country.
One of the things that we did do is to add money in this legislation,
$130 million above the President's request, to provide $503 million for
new vehicle technologies and for biofuels. Another area as far as the
energy crisis was the change in the overall request relative to climate
change and, again, funds were made available for such things as
research, development and demonstration of new energy technologies in
solar, geothermal, wind, hydropower, fossil and nuclear energy as well
as research, development and demonstration of conservation technologies
for buildings and industries as well as the deployment of energy
conservation through weatherization in Federal buildings.
There are a lot of very positive things that we have done in this
legislation to advance a positive energy agenda. The gentlewoman's
amendment would be hurtful to those efforts and I am opposed to her
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. 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 gentlewoman from Colorado
will be postponed.

{time} 1400

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Of the funds made available in title III under the
heading ``Science'', $37,000,000 is for the Medical
Applications and Measurement Science Program.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have offered an amendment,
and I will tell my colleagues I intend to withdraw it at the end of my
presentation, but there is an issue that has been festering between two
agencies that I think Congress needs to go ahead and take action to
resolve.
This amendment ensures that the Department of Energy Office of
Science and the Office of Biological and Environmental Research spends
$37 million on medical isotope research in an account that is known as
Medical Applications and Measurement Science. This would restore the
funding to FY 2005 levels.
Medical isotopes are used extensively in imaging technology for the
diagnosis and treatment of cancer, heart disease, and several
neurological disorders. The program that DOE runs funds basic research
in new diagnostic and therapeutic applications using nuclear isotopes.
This research has identified new metabolic labels and imaging detectors
that have helped identify colon cancer, brain tumors, bone cancers and
many other cancers.
In addition, this research would fund new radiopharmaceuticals to
attach to specific cancer cells and treat them and prevent metastasis.
Congress reduced this program in fiscal year 2006 by $23 million
because of pressures on the other part of the DOE budget, but also
directed them to transfer the program over to the National Institutes
of Health, particularly the National Cancer Institute. The NIH did not
pick up this research; and in a recent meeting with scientists who do
this research, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who is the director at NIH, said NIH
does not do this type of research; NIH cannot do this type of research.
They don't have the expertise in the nuclear materials required, and
also that this research must go forward.
The new director of Office of Biological and Environmental Research
has said that he understands the need for DOE to conduct this research
and has

[[Page H6767]]

said he could provide the funding within his own budget within this
research at the fiscal year 2005 level if directed to do so by
Congress. The National Academy of Sciences is currently conducting a
review of this program, and I think this program does need to go
forward.
The funds in this particular program, in the last year that it was at
this level, FY 2005, funded on the basis of competitive grants programs
and research projects in 40 different locations, largely universities,
some national laboratories, most of them in the State of California,
although also at Case Western University in Ohio in New York, and
across the country, but it is critical research using
radiopharmaceuticals and targets, enriched targets, that really only
the Department of Energy works with. For that reason, that's the
appropriate place to do this research.
Now, for technical and procedural reasons, I understand that there is
a legitimate point of order against this particular amendment that's
legitimate, but I did want to at least raise this issue and say we need
to sort this out, that the appropriate place for this nuclear research
is actually in the Department of Energy rather than at the NIH, and the
NIH has said, no, we don't have the expertise to do it.
We need to sort this out to continue this highly successful research.
I strongly support it, and I hope that we would be able to work with
the Senate in conference to make sure that this program is
appropriately funded through the Office of Science.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the ranking member of the committee.
Mr. HOBSON. I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns, and we will work
to try to address them in conference.
I also appreciate her withdrawing the amendment.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

Sec. __ None of the funds made available in this Act may be
used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue a
permit or other authorization for any action that may affect
land use in any locality if a request has been made to the
Commission for a public hearing in the locality concerned and
such request has not been granted.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 19, 2007, the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank
Chairman Visclosky for all his hard work on this bill.
As a former appropriator in the Connecticut General Assembly, I know
how hard this job is, and I am honored to stand next to him today.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment at the desk will bar the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, or FERC, from using funds to issue permits for
projects that have not been the subject of a local public hearing.
This amendment is based on a simple premise. Public policymakers
cannot and should not act without the input of citizens who will be
affected by the decisions that they make. As legislators, we know that
we can't sample public opinion by just sitting here in Washington. We
need to go back to our districts and solicit opinion, whether it be in
public forums, town fairs, or even at the supermarket or the post
office.
A regulatory agency should be held to the same standard. This
amendment does nothing to alter or constrain the final decisionmaking
authority of FERC. It just assures that the commission hears all sides
before making any determination on land-use issues.
Though this amendment would help many communities where FERC has
refused to hold a public hearing in an affected locality, and I know
Mr. Arcuri from New York, who may not be able to join us, holds this
concern as well, I come to this issue with my concern through my
constituents who live surrounding the Candlewood Lake area in
Connecticut, the largest inland body of water in the State.
My constituents there have been unable to secure a public hearing
from FERC to air their concerns regarding a shoreline management plan
proposed by the utility that owns the lake. This shoreline management
plan will change how they enjoy the land surrounding their homes and
the price they will pay for the privilege of living on the lake.
Local feelings on the appropriateness of the plan are mixed. However,
whatever residents may think, what is clear is that they should have
the opportunity to directly make their case to FERC. FERC has continued
to deny requests, both from my office and from constituents to hold a
local hearing, and this is unacceptable, I think, to every Member of
Congress.
I understand the Appropriations Committee, as well as the Energy and
Commerce Committee, may like some more time to look into this issue.
Mr. Chairman, if the chairman of the subcommittee would be willing to
work with me on this issue, I would be honored to yield to him at this
point.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding very much and
certainly appreciate his passion and concern about the health and
safety of his constituents and this important issue to him.
The problem we have incurred on the committee, and this is not the
only regulatory issue regarding FERC that has been brought to our
attention, is we are not a regulatory body and obviously have
jurisdictional issues that are set aside over and above the issues of
substance relative to the gentleman's amendment.
But we do appreciate his concern. Certainly we would be happy to stay
in touch with him, without making a commitment, that this issue will be
resolved through the appropriations process. We do believe that the
higher this issue could be raised as far as the public and the
regulatory commission, the better off all the citizens of his community
are going to be.
Again, I thank the gentleman for raising the issue and appreciate the
fact that he apparently will be withdrawing his amendment.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, with the subcommittee
chairman's concern on this issue, at this time I would ask unanimous
consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. 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. 1 offered by Mr. Bishop of New York:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review
the application for the Broadwater Energy proposal, dockets
CP06-54-000, CP06-55-000, and CP06-56-000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am joined in offering this
amendment by Mr. Courtney and Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Let me start by thanking Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson
for their work on this bill. I think it's a first-rate appropriations
bill, and I particularly want to thank them for their efforts to fully
fund Brookhaven Laboratory in my district.
This amendment is a very straightforward amendment. It would prohibit

[[Page H6768]]

any funds in this act from being used by FERC to advance the pending
application of a floating storage and regasification unit known as
Broadwater in the middle of Long Island Sound.
We offer this amendment for several reasons. Let me cite three. The
first is that there are serious and debilitating environmental impacts
associated with this project. Serious environmental concerns have been
raised by the EPA, by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, the United States Department of the Interior, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
The second is that there are significant safety and security concerns
associated with this application, and even the Coast Guard, which would
be charged with securing this facility, has indicated that a much more
full public discussion needs to take place in order to determine who is
going to provide that security and who will fund it.
Lastly, this is the only means available to me to represent my
constituents. My constituents are overwhelmingly opposed to this
application, to this facility, and yet current law vests in the FERC
final authority to grant licensing for this project without any input
from local government at all.
This is the only means by which I as a Member of Congress can
exercise the will of the constituents I represent.
So I urge my colleagues to join me and Mr. Courtney and Ms. DeLauro
in supporting this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Courtney of Connecticut.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bishop-
DeLauro-Courtney amendment.
It's unfortunate that it's necessary for the United States Congress
to intercede into a pending matter before the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. However, despite repeated warnings from independent,
scientific, and public safety analysts that this application for a
floating liquid natural gas facility in Long Island Sound needs more
investigation, FERC has refused every request for more time to study
the implications of this facility in one of the most populated areas of
the United States.
The need for more time was highlighted again just a few weeks ago
with the release of a 43-page report by the Government Accountability
Office that looked at the public safety consequences of a terrorist
attack on a tanker carrying liquid natural gas. GAO reviewed what would
be the effect of a liquid LNG spill and explosion.
The bottom line: more research is needed. Experts disagreed on what
would happen if there was a cascading failure of an LNG tanker, and GAO
recommended that the Department of Energy study this issue more
thoroughly.
GAO's report should settle the question of whether applications such
as Broadwater should proceed. If DOE determines from an expert opinion
that a cascading failure would cause a hazard beyond 1 mile, then this
application is fatally flawed, literally. At some point it is incumbent
on the Congress of the United States to act upon the recommendations of
the GAO, which is an agency funded and created by us as an independent
branch of government.
When GAO says that it is premature to conclude that LNGs are safe in
populous areas of our Nation, then we have an obligation to act on that
advice. This amendment accomplishes that goal. I strongly urge its
passage.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. We have 28 million people living within 50 miles of the Long
Island Sound. It contributes more than $5 billion to our economy
annually. It provides environmental, recreational, and economic
opportunity for our communities.
It is an estuary designated by Congress for its national
significance. Our responsibility is to keep major and potentially
dangerous industrial product out of our fragile sound. That includes
the LNG Broadwater facility. This would install a floating vessel,
roughly the size of Queen Mary 2, 10.2 miles off the Connecticut coast,
9 miles off the Long Island coast.
It calls for the installation of a 25-mile pipeline in the middle of
prime territory for lobstering and fishing. It creates an exclusionary
zone, prohibits any vessels from coming within a certain distance of
the facility itself and delivery tankers. It would fall to the Coast
Guard to maintain our security.
Their funds are stretched thin. Instead of being able to manage
fisheries, conducting lifesaving operations, and dealing with port
security, we will be diverting resources to these tankers. It would
propose a new security risk.
I commend Mr. Bishop and my colleague, Mr. Courtney. This amendment
gives DOE the time to address these concerns.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
but let me first begin my discussion by expressing my sincere respect
for the gentleman who has offered the amendment, Mr. Bishop, as well as
the two speakers who have followed him in support of it, particularly
my colleague on the Appropriations Committee, the chairwoman, Ms.
DeLauro.

{time} 1415

I would point out to the body that this is the second FERC issue that
has been brought up on a regulatory matter before the subcommittee on
the floor. We have had other inquiries from Members that have not
reached this level that are very similar in substance in other areas of
the country. I would not pretend to deny that there is a problem, but I
am not competent to sort through that fact as I am not a regulator
myself, to make a determination, and do not believe that this is a
venue to make those particular determinations.
The amendment before us undoes the Natural Gas Act for the orderly
review and decision making process for energy infrastructure and limits
energy development efforts. FERC's consideration of applications to
site energy facilities does not imply that the applications will be
granted, or if granted, will not require appropriate environmental
protection measures. Moreover, all FERC authorizations are subject to
judicial review.
I do believe that FERC's application process ought to be able to run
its course. And again, I regret that I have to stand in objection to
the amendment but trust that my colleagues understand the impetus for
that.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. I want to associate my comments with the chairman. I have
the utmost regard for all the Members who spoke on this, but I do
oppose the amendment and join with the chairman.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the Bishop/Courtney/DeLauro Amendment.
The amendment would unfairly target a single liquefied natural gas
project, ``Broadwater,'' that is mid-way through a very extensive
Federal and State regulatory process. Interfering with this regulatory
review would undermine the very process that is designed to provide a
thorough assessment of environmental, safety, security and energy
supply impacts of the project.
I understand the desire of the proponents of this amendment to ensure
the ultimate security of their constituents, but I hope this amendment
is not simply a red herring to utimately stop further efforts to site
LNG terminals across the U.S.
LNG has a record of relative safety for the last 40 years, and no LNG
tanker or land-based facility has been attacked by terrorists. Since
September 11, 2001, the U.S. LNG industry and federal agencies have put
new mesures in place to respond to the possibility of terrorism.
Federal initiatives to secure LNG are still evolving, but a variety of
industry and agency representatives suggest they are reducing the
vulnerability of LNG to terrorism.
Here in America we only have two options to increase our supply of
natural gas to meet our energy needs--we can build more LNG import
plants and we can produce more gas offshore. There is no alternative to
natural gas in many cases.
Unfortunately, the opponents of both options are often the same
people--they oppose LNG and they oppose drilling for gas. Without
increased exploration or LNG facilities, where will we receive the
energy America needs in the immediate future?

[[Page H6769]]

Natural gas is the cleanest energy source we have besides solar or
wind, and it is a critical fuel for industrial facilities and is a
feedstock for the petrochemical industry that makes plastic.
If we cannot produce natural gas here, we are going to have to import
gas to heat our homes and import more plastic in bulk or in consumer
products. That hurts our balance of trade.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Bishop-
Courtney-DeLauro Amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. 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 New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman
from California?
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Yes, the Campbell amendment. Number 14.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 503. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby
reduced in the amount of $1,305,000,000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 19,
2007, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed each
will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the Chair, and I also want to thank the
chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member. I have great
respect for their work, particularly the ranking member, who is a
friend, colleague and actually neighbor of mine. I appreciate his work
over the years here in the United States Congress.
This amendment is pretty simple. It takes spending levels in the bill
back to the fiscal 2007 year levels; represents a $1.3 billion savings
to taxpayers and families across the country.
Mr. Chairman, government spends too much. And I said ``government.''
I didn't say Republicans or Democrats. Both parties need to work on
this area when it comes to public policy.
But today the Federal Government spends $23,000 per household.
Excessive spending hurts America. Deficits hurt America, and a rising
national debt hurts America.
You don't have to take my word for it. Our staff went through and we
looked at the Budget Chairman, Mr. Spratt's committee, some notes from
their committee hearings on the budget. And I want to just quote from
Dr. Edward Gramlich, former Governor of the Federal Reserve Board. He
said this: ``Deficits represent negative public saving, which tends to
drive down national saving. Lower national savings means a smaller
stock of capital for the future, which reduces the productivity and
wages of future workers. Budget deficits lead to less economic growth
and a lower level of economic activity than would otherwise be the
case.''
Excessive spending leads to deficits, leads to lower economic growth.
Excessive spending leads to tax increases, all bad for our growing
economy, all bad for American families.
And it's particularly, I think, important to recognize why this is so
crucial that we get a handle on it as we think about the marketplace we
find ourselves in today, the changing international market.
Just a couple of numbers. Four weeks ago the Wall Street Journal
reported that China's economic growth rate, annual growth rate, is 10.4
percent. Now, think about this: one billion, 300 million people in
China with a growth rate of 10.4 percent. That's what we're competing
against.
There was a point in the past where elected officials could maybe
enact policies that weren't in our best interest or weren't good for
our economic growth. But now, because of the fact that the competition
is so stiff, it's important that public policymakers get it right. Keep
taxes low, keep spending under control.
In the end, Mr. Chairman, it's not just about deficits and the
national debt and GDP. It's about people because, in the end, it's
people who pay taxes. It's people who have to deal with this debt and
the deficits that we're causing by spending at these levels.
I want to also quote from the same document from Chairman Spratt's
committee, from the Comptroller General, Mr. Walker. He said,
``Deficits matter for the world we leave our children and our
grandchildren.'' Mr. Walker said this, and I quote, ``Today we are
failing in one of our most important stewardship responsibilities, our
duty to pass on a country better positioned to deal with the challenges
of the future than the one we were given.'' And that's so true.
This amendment is real simple. It's going to allow families and
people across this country to keep more of their money to spend on
their goals, their dreams. And it's simply taking us back to last
year's fiscal level.
There are all kind of families, all kinds of individuals across this
country who are living on last year's budget. A simple, across-the-
board amendment that says we're going to do what so many American
families have to do all the time, and we're going to live within our
means.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs.
Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we know is that
the Federal Government does spend too much money. We all hear it from
our constituents. They are really aggravated with the amount of
spending that they see coming out of this town, and there is a good
reason for that. It is because it is their money. They earn that money
and they send it to Washington, and then there is a lot of aggravation
with how we choose to spend their hard-earned dollars.
And the gentleman is so correct in his amendment, moving this back to
last year's levels.
Now, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we know is it would give a
$1.3 billion savings for the American taxpayer, and we know that
principles like this and operations like this work. When you go through
spending reduction, it works.
Our States are great labs for finding ways to find efficiencies in
government, and there's a reason for that. It's because many of our
States have balanced budget amendments. And many of our States have
frozen at previous years' levels, or they've been reduced 1 percent, 2
percent or 5 percent across the board.
And what they have found out is that, in their operations, they can
move in and find efficiencies and find ways to seek a savings, and
still have the same caliber and quality of program that they have had.
But, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that they do find is that many
times those programs are more effective.
So I commend Mr. Jordan for the work that he has done to find a $1.3
billion savings to make certain that the pressure is there on these
departments to live within their means, to try to do our best, to avoid
what the Democrats are wanting to pass, which is the single largest tax
increase in history, and to make certain that we give a message to our
constituents that we have heard them and we agree with them. Government
spends too much of their hard-earned money.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve my time at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Ohio for putting
up this amendment. It's a very simple amendment that I think does well
for us to consider in context with what we have to wrestle with, the
consideration coming from the largest tax

[[Page H6770]]

increase in the history of the United States being offered, $400
billion on the taxpayers. And I take it into context as I looked here
with this amendment offering a $1.3 billion cut in spending, going back
to last year's levels, and saying let's live within our means.
I come from a Great Lakes State. When we talk about water, I do know
about water. I know the impact that it can have, the impact upon all of
our way of life.
But I also come from a State that's struggling at this point in time
with economic conditions that comes from too large government, too much
spending, too much taxation. And in the process of trying to deal with
that, going the opposite direction of where they should, they're still
frustrating what's going on and producing unemployment rates that rival
any in history, and frustrating Michigan from having the same type of
impact that we see just last week talked about in the New York Times of
a 40-State growth rate that goes on with States that not only, because
of tax cuts and spending within their means, have seen the ability not
only to increase some of their services, set aside rainy day funds, but
also talk about further tax cuts. That's what we need to be doing here;
not considering spending more in a time in our history when we ought to
be considering what comes with the future.
If we see a $400 billion tax increase go in place, we see a tax that
goes on for working, a tax that goes on if you get married, a tax that
goes on if you have a child, a tax that will go on, even if you die.
Those are issues of great concern.
And so to be fiscally responsible here and use an amendment that
simply takes us back to a reasonable standard of expenditures, puts us
in a place that we can afford and fund to do the necessary services, we
do ourself well.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, we may only have one speaker on our
side, so I would still reserve my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Ohio for offering this
amendment.
We're debating now on a 3.5 percent across-the-board cut to an
appropriations bill. It's an amazing thing in Congress; with one vote,
we can slash $1.3 billion out of an appropriations bill.
What we're debating here is not simply a small cut. We're debating on
whether or not the American taxpayers can depend on the Bush tax cuts
from 2001 and 2003. We're trying to determine what kind of economic
growth we'll have as a Nation, based on how much the government spends
in taxes.
This is more than a debate about spending. This is a debate about the
size and scope of government.
Well, let's put the facts on the table. The American Government costs
$2.7 trillion a year. That is the largest government on Earth. And
further perspective here: It's the largest government in the history of
mankind.
Now, to put this further into perspective, there are only two
economies outside of the United States that are equal to the size of
our Federal spending. That's Germany and Japan. And what is amazing
about this, what is absolutely amazing about this, is that we have a
Federal Government that's larger than most economies on Earth. In fact,
our Federal Government spends more than the whole of China's economy.
Now, that's simply amazing. I think it shows that, while we're
debating on extending the Bush tax cuts, the American people understand
that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem here
in the United States.
This Congress is addicted to spending. In fact, in just a week's
time, they appropriated $100 billion. Now, that's fast work even for
Washington, DC.
The American people, Mr. Chairman, understand that we need to tighten
our belt. A 3.5 percent across-the-board cut is a good start. That'll
save $1.3 billion of the American taxpayers' hard-earned money.
I commend my colleague for offering this amendment, and I urge its
adoption.

{time} 1430

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
gentleman from Ohio's amendment, and I want to thank him for offering
it.
Today in this amendment, the gentleman from Ohio is offering American
taxpayers a $1.3 billion tax cut on an appropriations bill. And it is
important for everyone to understand, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment
is a $1.3 billion tax cut for Americans because the Democrat budget
that they have produced, which pays for these increases in their
appropriations bill, this Democrat budget spends all that new money by
raising taxes.
The Democrat budget assumes that the Bush tax cuts are going to all
go away. And by eliminating the Bush tax cuts, the effect is the
largest tax increase in American history, which the Democrat majority
has orchestrated in a way that they can allow it to go away without
even having to cast a vote. The budget that the Democrats use to pay
for these massive increases in this appropriations bill are paid for by
the biggest tax increase in American history. And, therefore, the
gentleman's amendment, Congressman Jordan's amendment, is a $1.3
billion tax cut. And that is a critical point that I think everyone
needs to make sure they understand.
When they vote for this amendment, they are voting to cut the taxes
of our constituents by $1.3 billion. And it is really just that simple.
And I could not thank him enough. It is an extraordinarily important
amendment. There are vitally important functions in this Energy and
Water appropriations bill that need to be funded, but this increase is
not affordable at the time of record debt and deficit, and I applaud
the gentleman and urge Members to vote for a $1.3 billion tax cut.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
but he shouldn't really yield me all the time that I might consume
because I might consume it all. So please inform me when I have used
about 4 minutes, and then I might use an additional 1.
Mr. Chairman, each of the people who have already spoken in favor of
this piece of legislation, which would take $1.3 billion or $1.8
billion, whichever it is, I don't remember precisely, out of the
recommended budget, the budget that has been recommended by the
chairman and ranking member with a unanimous vote out of the
Appropriations Committee, each of the people who had spoken in favor of
this amendment has made the comment that the budget resolution has
raised taxes by the largest amount ever in the history of this country.
Each of the Members has made that allegation.
Each of the Members knows perfectly well that you cannot raise taxes,
you cannot raise taxes by that mechanism; that any raise in taxes has
to be passed by the House and the Senate in exactly the same form and
then signed by the President of the United States. So it is simply
incorrect, and each and every Member knows that it is incorrect that
the budget raises taxes, raises the largest tax increase in the history
of the country.
The last gentleman who spoke pointed out that the adoption of this
amendment, which would reduce this particular bill, recommended by both
the chairman and the ranking member, by $1.3 billion, that that would
be a $1.3 billion tax reduction. The gentleman who made that comment
also knows that no reduction in taxes can occur except by legislation
that is passed by both Houses and signed by the President. So, again,
it is totally incorrect to make that allegation.
Now, the first speaker, who has offered this amendment, has said that
this bill spends too much. Well, I think the measure of whether a bill
spends too much is whether we are doing what is necessary for the
security of this country and for the well-being of the people of
America. And I think what has been done by the chairman and ranking
member falls very much in the point of providing for the security of
the country and also for the well-being of the American citizens.
I would point out that the chairman and the ranking member and the
full

[[Page H6771]]

subcommittee that brings forward this legislation has reduced by over
$800 million the President's request, actually $900 million over the
President's request, in programs that have been terminated or reduced,
in all of those that have been terminated and reduced. Now, what they
have done, after making those reductions from the President's request
and in their responsibility to provide for the budget for the country,
they have then added moneys. They have added about $400 million in the
provisions for renewable energy, which have to deal with solar energy,
biofuel energy, nuclear energy and geothermal, wind, and all the other
good renewable energy sources which we need desperately for our
national security to remove ourselves from the heavy dependence that we
have on foreign oil. So that is a place where if this amendment were
adopted and we were to go back to the 2007 numbers, then we would lose
that increase, that very important increase of $400 billion.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman asked to be notified when he has
gone past 4 minutes. The gentleman has gone past 4 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We would lose that $400 million of very important investments for the
security and well-being of this country.
And I would just also like to point out that there are substantial
increases, which the ranking member has pointed out, that deal with the
deficits, the deficits in investments in our water infrastructure under
the Corps of Engineers and also under the Bureau of Reclamation, those
places where we have dams that are in need of investment that has not
been done over recent years and investments that should be done in our
ports in order to make our commerce go better, a whole series of things
which the ranking member had laid out very carefully in his initial
remarks in relation to this legislation. All of those things which are
increases that are in this legislation, part of that $1.3 billion,
which would be removed, then those pieces of investments would thereby
become unnecessary.
So I think this legislation is right on target for securing this
Nation and for securing the well-being of the people of America. And I
hope that the gentleman's amendment will be rejected.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Again, I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and
apologize to the gentleman for having his State of origin incorrect,
especially because he is from the great State of Ohio. But I would
emphasize that this is the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act for the coming year, and we are in an energy crisis and it
transcends the cost of the price of gasoline at the pump. It is a true
economic situation and crisis that we face. It is a national security
issue that we face. My good friend, the senior Senator from the State
of Indiana, Senator Lugar, has characterized the energy crisis we face
as the albatross around our national security neck. It is also an
environmental issue as far as a potential catastrophic climate change
that will occur if we do not deal with the issue of CO2.
This bill makes an investment in solving that crisis we face. It will
not solve all the problems tomorrow morning, but it will put us on firm
footing to do so in the future.
Let's talk about vehicle technology. The bill recommends $93 million
for hybrid electric systems, an increase of $13 million over the
President's request. Of the increase, $10 million is for energy storage
research and development for advanced batteries for electric, hybrid
electric, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and $3 million is for
independent test and evaluation of all vehicles developed in the
upcoming demonstration phase.
This bill also includes $49 million for advanced combustion engine
research and development, an increase of $15 million over the
President's request to restore funding for heavy truck engine research
that was eliminated in the administration's request.
It does include $48 million, $15 million over the budget, for
materials technology research, to accelerate the development of cost-
effective materials and manufacturing processes that contribute to
fuel-efficient passenger and commercial vehicles.
It includes $10 million more than the administration's request for
nonpetroleum-based fuels and lubricants evaluation to expand and
accelerate research and development for the optimum ethanol fuel.
And we also have an increase for technology integration of $6 million
in this bill for vehicle technologies and deployment, formerly the
Clean Cities Program. We have moneys in here to advance geothermal
technology, to demonstrate cost-share industry that will allow
accelerated research into new geothermal technologies.
We have moneys in here for hydropower; for research, development, and
demonstration of ocean, tidal, and in-stream hydropower energy systems.
We have made an investment in this bill for electricity supply and
delivery research, for applied research on semi-conductor material,
device and processing issues, technology acceptance and technology
evaluation.
We have investment moneys in this bill for solar energy research, and
the gentleman from the State of Massachusetts talked about that
briefly, to develop cost-neutral designs and technologies to better
integrate solar heating and lighting into building designs. We have
made an investment in this bill for facilities to research, test, and
demonstrate the new renewable technologies.
It would be a mistake to change these funding levels and turn the
clock back as far as trying to make progress to solve the energy
problems we face in this Nation.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to associate myself with the
gentleman's comments.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the minority whip from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am here in support of this amendment. This amendment is one of the
things that we have to look at, one of the alternatives, to just stop
this spending spree that we see ourselves on.
In just over 6 months the new majority has passed and paved the way
for over $100 billion in increased spending. We already enacted $6.1
billion of new spending in the continuing resolution and $17 billion of
new spending in the supplemental.

{time} 1445

And these appropriations bills have over $80 billion in new spending.
As Everett Dirksen once famously said, ``A billion here, a billion
there, before you know it you're talking about real money.'' And here
we're talking about $100 billion of new spending.
Mr. Campbell's amendment only proposes that we reduce this spending
in this particular bill to the President's level. This bill increases
spending by $1.3 billion over last year, 4.3 percent higher than last
year. If you add this increase to the increases already proposed and
passed by House Democrats last week, we are spending $20.7 billion, or
15.6 percent, more than last year. Where is all this money going to go?
In this bill, $682 million, or a 35 percent increase, for operations
and maintenance within the Corps of Engineers; $1 billion, or a 4
percent increase, to the Department of Energy; $108 million, or an
increase of 13 percent, for salaries and expenses at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. These are excessive changes in spending that
this bill doesn't justify.
The only thing this amendment does is say let's go back to the
President's level. Let's go back to an amount of money that, while it
still provides for our immediate advances in energy and water, doesn't
do this in a way that American taxpayers can't pay for it. And how does
this majority intend to pay for it? The budget that would pay for it
has, unarguably, the second biggest tax increase in American history,
and arguably, the biggest tax increase in American history. In other
words, there is no question that we intend to spend $217 billion more
money that has to be raised from new taxes. And it's

[[Page H6772]]

still an open question as to how close we're going to let that get to
$400 billion.
Now, this is the question: Are the American taxpayers going to be
asked to provide 217 billion to 400 billion new dollars, or are we
going to simply take this bill as the first step back to the
President's level?
This is a good amendment. This amendment deserves the approval of our
friends. I hope our friends on both sides of the aisle, the
conservative Democrats, the Blue Dogs, stand up with most of the
Republicans to make this amendment happen.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I stress my opposition to the amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. 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 Ohio will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Wynn

Mr. WYNN. 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. 27 offered by Mr. Wynn:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. 503. Of the amount made available for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the Department of Energy,
$213,000,000 shall be made available for hydrogen
technologies as authorized by section 974 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16314).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, we have a very simple amendment here today.
It would basically restore $18.4 million for hydrogen technology, which
would bring the account up to the level that the administration,
through the Department of Energy, recommended.
This amendment is supported by the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Caucus. I would
note the leadership, particularly Mr. Larsen, in crafting this
amendment, also the work of Mr. Inglis of South Carolina and Mr. Dent
as part of the Caucus.
There are some who would say that hydrogen is too far away. In fact,
hydrogen is emissions-free and it is here today. GM has 100,000
vehicles ready to go. Honda has vehicles ready to go. BMW released
vehicles last year. There are buses, motorcycles, all of which are
being fueled by hydrogen fuel cells. Japan is talking about 50,000
vehicles by 2015. We need to keep pace. We need to put the money into
hydrogen technology.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept for the majority the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the amendment, also.
Mr. WYNN. As an old trial lawyer, I know when to stop. Thank you,
gentlemen, for the acceptance.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the Wynn
amendment to the Energy & Water Appropriations bill.
Contrary to statements in the Energy & Water Committee Report
questioning the level of hydrogen technology research and development,
fuel cells technology is much closer than 2050.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation took 60 years from the first Wright Brothers
flight to putting a man on the Moon; it will not take us that long to
make hydrogen fuel cells mainstream. Hydrogen cars and fueling stations
exist; we are almost there. The funding levels in the Fiscal Year 2008
Energy & Water appropriations bill will help provide the final push we
need to overcome remaining obstacles and see hydrogen cars and fueling
stations become a reality.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, Hydrogen Fuel Cells are already in use in
larger facilities. In my own District, the Henry Doorly Zoo uses fuel
cells to generate electricity for its Lied Jungle exhibit, making it
more energy efficient. Additionally, the U.S. Air Force is using fuel
cell technology for its Global Observer program.
Mr. Chairman, energy security and independence have to become a
reality. Hydrogen is a potentially limitless supply and a renewable,
clean resource that deserves to be funded at its current level, if not
more.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I relinquish the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Harman

Ms. HARMAN. 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. 11 offered by Ms. Harman:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs have
the ``ENERGY STAR'' designation.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I hope there is no one opposed. I offer
this amendment with Mr. Upton, Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Inglis of South
Carolina in order to help the government set an example for the rest of
the country by purchasing energy-efficient light bulbs.
Mr. Chairman, existing law requires Federal agencies to buy products
that meet Department of Energy, Energy Star or Federal Energy
Management program standards. This amendment adds teeth to that
standard, stating that no funds may be used to purchase any light bulb
that does not meet it. Identical language has already been adopted in
prior appropriations bills. Our intention is to offer this amendment as
the Upton-Harman amendment on the next appropriations bill and to
continue this until we are through the appropriations cycle.
Our bottom line is: The Federal Government must set the example. This
is already the law, but it needs to be the practice as well.
Let me close with the fact that incandescent bulbs, which are used by
most Americans, are 10 percent efficient. This sounds like Congress. I
think our goal ought to be much greater efficiency here in this body,
and much greater efficiency with respect to the lighting that we use.
It takes 18 seconds to change a light bulb. It will take more time than
that to change Congress. But it is my hope that this amendment will
pass attached to every appropriations bill.
I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. I thank the gentlelady, and I join in bipartisan spirit to
get this amendment adopted as we've done on the other appropriations
bills.
I might just note that this shining amendment will save the taxpayers
literally $30 for every bulb that is ultimately replaced. It is not
going to require that we take existing bulbs that work out when they
expire. We will put in energy-efficient Energy Star bulbs. It will save
the taxpayers ultimately hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is a bipartisan amendment. We found two additional cosponsors in
terms of Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Inglis of South Carolina. We're also in
the middle of a markup, so to be more efficient, I think both of us
would like to yield back our time.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. I am certainly not going to use my time in this instance.
I, for the majority, am willing to accept the gentlewoman and
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. HOBSON. I am also willing to accept the amendment for the
minority. I think it's a good amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H6773]]

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Berkley

Ms. BERKLEY. 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. 7 offered by Ms. Berkley:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to administer the ``Yucca Mountain Youth Zone''
website.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Visclosky
for his assistance on this issue and Congressman Hobson for his
agreement to accept this amendment.
My amendment is based on a simple concept--the Department of Energy,
or any government entity for that matter, should not be using taxpayer
funds to ``educate'' the children of America about one side of a very
complicated and contentious issue. The Department of Energy's Web site
includes a section called the ``Yucca Mountain Youth Zone,'' featuring
the cartoon character Yucca Mountain Johnny, along with games and
activities designed to convince kids that the proposed Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository is a good idea.
My position on Yucca Mountain should not be a mystery to any member
of this body. I have long opposed the plan to bury nuclear waste in the
Nevada desert following what I consider to be a process based on
politics rather than sound science. But I recognize that reasonable
people can disagree about such an important issue. What I do not
accept, however, is that the Department of Energy can get away with
trivializing a very serious debate by using a Nuclear Joe Camel to
promote Yucca Mountain to children.
My amendment would eliminate funding for the Yucca Mountain Youth
Zone Web site. Regardless of whether you support Yucca Mountain or
oppose it, all members of the House should agree that this Web site is
not an appropriate use of taxpayer funds.
If the Department of Energy really wants to remain in the cartoon
business, I suggest they come up with a new character that would
educate our children on the need for clean and renewable energy--how
about Solar Sally or Geothermal George? In any case, I urge my
colleagues to join me in dumping Yucca Mountain Johnny.
What I would like to do right now, in accordance with our agreement,
is yield to Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to indicate that I am
happy to accept the amendment.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY. 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. 5 offered by Mr. Conaway:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. It is the sense of the House of Representatives
that any reduction in the amount appropriated by this Act
achieved as a result of amendments adopted by the House
should be dedicated to deficit reduction.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, during this process of the debate over the
last several hours, Member after Member on our side have come to the
aisle and proposed amendments that would reduce spending off of this
appropriations bill. They do it in good faith but the truth of the
matter is, were any of those to pass and should any of those pass
subsequent to the actual recorded votes, that money actually stays
within the jurisdiction of the committee and gets spent somewhere else.
What my amendment would do is say that if we were able to succeed on
one of the amendments that reduces spending or cuts spending, that that
money instead of going back into the committee of jurisdiction pool or
subcommittee of jurisdiction pool would actually go against the
deficit. And should it be an unusual occurrence in the future with a
surplus circumstance, that money would simply increase the surplus.
This is straightforward, no tricks, no gimmicks. It is just simply if
the cuts are successful, that money actually does not get spent.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment my colleague
from Texas on this superb amendment because this has always been a
concern. I am proud to be a member of the Appropriations Committee. And
the effort that a lot of Members have made to try to eliminate earmarks
isn't going to go anywhere and save taxpayers any money unless we're
able to actually eliminate the earmark or pass a cut that then shifts
money into a deficit reduction account.
My colleague from west Texas is exactly right. I would encourage Mr.
Flake and others to pay close attention to what Mr. Conaway is doing
because this is precisely what I and others, Mr. Conaway has been
working on this for some time, have suggested you need a deficit
reduction account. You eliminate the earmark if you're worried about
controlling spending. A lot of those earmarks are important and
necessary and we all need to post them on our Web sites. I've been
doing that for a long, long time. Every earmark I make I'm proud of,
it's there on the Web site. The starting answer is ``no'' for all
appropriations requests, but if you earn an earmark, be proud of it.
But those earmarks that we want to eliminate, cut them and put them in
this deficit reduction account.
Mr. Conaway is exactly right. This is a tremendous amendment. I hope
all Members will support it because the taxpayers deserve to save this
money and have it go towards reducing the deficit.
I thank you very much, Mr. Conaway. It's a great amendment. And I
will work hard to help you pass it.
Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for his support.
I understand there is a valid point of order against this amendment.
If there is any possibility whatsoever of working with the other side
and trying to accomplish what my colleague on the Appropriations
Committee and I would like to do, we would like to work with you.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Andrews). Without objection, the amendment
is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Shadegg:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:

SEC. 503. LIMITATION ON FUNDS RELATED TO FEDERAL DAMS.

No funds appropriated in or made available by this Act may
be used to study or implement any plan to breach,
decommission, or remove any Federal dams producing
hydropower.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

{time} 1500

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by complimenting the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and the ranking
member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), for showing support for
hydropower in the base bill.
Hydropower has long been overlooked as a source for clean energy. I
am very pleased that this bill, and the report that goes along with it,
support hydropower and encourage its use and its utilization.

[[Page H6774]]

My amendment builds off of that effort by simply saying that the
existing hydropower that we have should not be decommissioned at this
point in time.
As everybody in this body knows, we are very concerned about
greenhouse gases, both on the Commerce Committee, where I serve, and on
the Select Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence.
We are looking at the danger posed to this country by greenhouse
gases. Indeed, that is a threat to this economy, to this Nation, and to
this world. My amendment simply says that hydropower manages to address
that issue by producing both clean power and power which has no
hydrocarbons whatsoever.
Hydropower is emission-free, and it is also completely renewable; so
therefore this amendment simply says that none of the funds in this
legislation shall be used to decommission any existing Federal dam
which is currently producing hydroelectric power.
Now, I know of no dam that has currently been proposed to be
decommissioned that is a Federal dam and is producing electric power.
But it seems to me that this is an action item. This is an opportunity
for us to say we are serious about greenhouse gas reduction. We are
serious about renewable energy. We are serious about a clean
environment. We are serious about not doing more damage by simply
saying none of these funds shall be used to decommission or remove from
current production any existing hydroelectric power dam that is
producing electricity for Americans today.
It truly is clean, and it truly is renewable; and I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, I truly do, the
gentleman's concerns regarding the breaching of hydropower dams.
Certainly, this country and the government should proceed very
carefully before any such decision is made.
I would point out, however, Mr. Chairman, that there are no funds in
this bill for that purpose. Indeed, I would remind my colleagues that
authorization and direct appropriations for this purpose would also be
needed. So I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. But I
would also point out in a positive fashion that there is $95 million in
this bill for the rehabilitation of existing hydroelectric facilities
on our waterways.
I certainly do think they make a significant, and can make even a
greater, contribution to the energy demands of this country. But again,
Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bilbray), the former chairman of the Clean Air
Resources Board in California.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, as a former member of the Clean Air
Resources Board in California, as I think a lot of people in this town
know, one of the premier air pollution agencies in the world, the one
thing that we have got to send a message out there is ``do no harm.''
Even though the chairman may think that there isn't a need to send a
message, I think we need to say very clearly that climate change is a
threat, something we need to address. We have to be willing to make
sure we do the right things now.
This amendment is really a way for us to start off right from the
get-go that we are not going to allow a mistake to happen that could
cause major impacts on climate emissions and that we just didn't care
enough to pass this resolution.
I strongly support the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Shadegg) because I think we should say right off, our first step at
reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to make sure we do not
decommission any zero generators from this point forward unless it is
part of a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gases. So please,
here is a motion at least we can stand up and say, we did no harm; we
made sure that a mistake wasn't made.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would yield such time as he may
consume to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. But
I want to tell you I am very sympathetic to the gentleman's concerns.
We should preserve hydropower wherever we can. We should advance
hydropower. He is correct in those statements.
However, I think the amendment is too broadly written and could lead
to unintended negative consequences because there may be certain
structures that because of environmental reasons or economic reasons we
need to take some action on.
So what I would like to suggest to everyone is that we oppose the
amendment, but we work together to see, because I think the chairman
shares the concern for hydropower and that we would try to work to see
how we can get some language at some point that might address the
problem in a more appropriate way. So I do reluctantly oppose the
amendment, but I am certainly within the spirit of the amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly be happy to cooperate
with my colleague and ranking member, Mr. Hobson, in that regard.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank both the gentlemen for their
comments.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I do hope something can be worked out
here, because hydropower is the original renewable resource. And there
is starting to be a bias in this country against hydropower. There is
also starting to be a bias in this country in some quarters in favor of
tearing dams down.
I think it is very, very important, and by the way with reference to
hydropower, just look at California's greenhouse gas reduction plan.
They do not give any credit for power generated by hydropower. I think
that is very bad.
I think Mr. Shadegg is on the right track. We have got to speak up
for hydropower. We have got to slow down this effort to tear down dams.
I know the chairman and ranking member have the best of intentions. I
am glad they are running the committee. I would just like to lend my
voice for this very responsible amendment that Mr. Shadegg has offered.
I hope that we can work something out.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank both of the gentlemen. I would be happy to work
with them. I simply want to stress, we understand, and I think everyone
here does, that hydropower is more efficient than virtually all other
energy. Ninety percent of its available energy is converted into
electricity by hydropower. By contrast, the best fossil fuel power
converts only 50 percent of its energy.
Hydropower produces zero greenhouse gas emissions. And we have
avoided some 160 million tons of carbon emissions by the use of
hydropower here in the United States in the last year.
The report says hydropower is reliable, it is efficient, it is
domestic, and it is emissions-free. Indeed, as I state in my comments,
the report is very supportive of hydropower. I think this amendment is
an opportunity to take a concrete step both toward renewable energy and
toward clean energy that produces no greenhouse gases.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H6775]]

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more
than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at any
single conference occurring outside the United States.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
How many times do we have Members come before us on this floor with
an amendment, and they begin their statement by saying, here I have a
commonsense amendment to this piece of legislation. Well, in this case,
I do believe I have a commonsense amendment to this legislation, and in
fact most Members of this House I believe would agree with that
statement as well.
Why I say that is because the language of this amendment is similar,
or dare I say identical, to language that I have used in previous
amendments on appropriation bills in past Congresses, and these
amendments, quite fortunately, have passed pretty much by voice vote in
those Congresses.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would
indicate to the gentleman that I am happy to accept his amendment.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I also am in
support of the amendment.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
appreciate that. For those who are watching, let me let them know what
the amendment does.
What this amendment does, and I appreciate both gentlemen's accepting
this, is to say our Federal agencies should use common sense when they
go to international conferences.
In the past, there were extravagances. There were cases when over 100
individuals, government employees, would go to these conferences
overseas, costing literally millions of taxpayers' dollars to do so. We
are saying, let's rein that in a little bit. Let's put a number on
that. Some people say this number is too high. This number puts it at
50. So any particular agency going overseas, Africa, Asia, wherever
else, let's have them not send more than 50. Some of us would like it
to be lower, but we will put it at 50 of their agency employees to that
conference. I think just like any business or family, they would have
to absolutely exercise priorities and common sense as well. We do so
here.
Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for accepting this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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. 12 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. 503. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is reduced
by 1 percent.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.

{time} 1515

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the leadership's support in allowing me to
bring this amendment forward. I also want to recognize former
Congressman Joel Hefley. This has come to be known as the Hefley
amendment. So I want to thank former Congressman Hefley for his
leadership on fiscal responsibility issues in Congresses past.
There has been a lot of talk about money on this bill, Mr. Chairman,
and this is the appropriate time, because it is appropriations time.
Most of the programs that we have discussed are indeed worthy programs.
But I think it is imperative that we always remember where this money
comes from that we are appropriating, that we are spending.
The money isn't Washington's money. The money is the money of the
hardworking American taxpayer, and we ought not ever lose sight of
that. As such, we ought to bend over backwards to make certain we are
being as responsible as possible in its expenditure.
The big picture on this bill is the Energy and Water appropriations.
The big picture is that last year this government spent, Washington
spent on these programs, $30.2 billion. That is with a ``B,'' Mr.
Chairman. This year, the proposal is to spend $31.6 billion; $31.6
billion, an increase of 4.3 percent.
This amendment is very simple. It says simply that we ought to
decrease that overall amount by 1 percent, in an effort to save one
penny on the dollar, as families all across this Nation have to do when
they are having some tight fiscal times.
It would be an increase of 3.3 percent over last year. I know there
are those who would like it to be lower. I am one of those. But I think
it is important that Congress ought to make a statement that we can
indeed be fiscally responsible. This 3.3 percent increase, this
amendment would provide for that, and would be a reduction of 1 percent
over the amount in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank a number of Members who have offered
similar pieces of legislation or amendments, Congresswoman Blackburn,
Congressman Campbell, Congressman Jordan, Congressman Feeney,
Congresswoman Musgrave and Congressman Hensarling, for their leadership
on these issues.
I think this a commonsense issue. It is a matter that I believe ought
to garner great support in this Congress and demonstrate to all that we
indeed have an interest in fiscal responsibility. So I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the chief deputy whip of this
conference.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia. It is a very straightforward amendment. It
simply applies an across-the-board cut of 1 percent to this bill to
send the signal that this Congress gets it; that we understand what the
American people said, both during the election of last year and what
they continue to say today.
As the American public continues to watch Congress, as we have now
engaged upon and entered upon the spending season, as the spending and
appropriations process is in full bloom, I think we owe it to the
American people to do what the gentleman from Georgia says, which is to
recognize that these dollars don't belong to the government. They are
the hard-earned dollars of the taxpayers of this country.
Now, the underlying bill, as the gentleman said, spends considerably
more than what this similar bill spent last year and this Congress
spent in this bill last year. In fact, the increase in the level of
spending is 10 percent in this bill alone. That is triple the rate of
inflation and that means $1.3 billion, billion with a B, taxpayer
dollars, more on this one bill.
Mr. Chairman, what that means in real terms to me and to my
constituents, that means more than 3 years' worth of property taxes for
every household and every business in my home County of Henrico in the
Richmond area of Virginia. That is an awful lot of money.
So the public expects us to return Washington to fiscal sanity. The
message that was sent last November was that the public expected us to
operate differently. Frankly, I don't believe that this bill moves us
in that direction. But I do know one thing for sure:

[[Page H6776]]

that the spending in this bill, if we don't adopt this amendment, will
further erode the public trust, not only in this body but in government
as a whole.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition. I have
been listening to this debate over the past couple of days. It seems
like the past couple of years. It has been a lengthy debate.
Our friends on the other side, Mr. Chairman, after running up over $3
trillion in debt, are now going to lecture us about how we should be
thrifty. You had 6 years to try to close the annual deficits, and your
budget you are submitting again this year will be over $200 billion in
deficit.
Now, we are not here to be lectured to. Three trillion dollars. And
the Republican House, the Republican Senate and the Republican White
House in the past 6 years borrowed more money from foreign interests
than all of the previous Presidents and Congresses combined.
So, my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, who was up here earlier
talking about now we have got to try to compete with China, well, it is
very tough to compete with them when the Republican Party, Mr.
Chairman, borrows money from them hand over fist like drunken sailors
over the past 6 years.
Now we are here to clean up the mess, and our budget that we pass
will balance it. What your amendment is going to do is it is going to
take away from research that is going to help grow the economy. You are
going to cut biomass research. You are going to cut geothermal
research. You are going to cut hydro research, where your own party was
just up here saying what a great thing it is. You are going to cut
solar research. You are going to cut wind research. You are going to
cut concentrating solar power research. Solar heating and lighting
research will be cut under this. Solar PV ratings will be cut under
this. Hybrid electric system. We are getting testimonials from all our
constituents in our districts about how they want lower gas prices. You
do that by reducing your dependence on foreign oil and investing in
alternative energy. That is what we are doing in this bill, and your
amendment will cut that.
Advanced combustion engine research will be cut in this, materials
technology research will be cut in this, fuels technology will be cut
in this, technology integration will be cut under this amendment.
This is a responsible bill that was voted by both Republicans and
Democrats out of the Energy and Water Committee. It makes great
investments. It turns the page on the past of not balancing your
budgets, not making the investments, Mr. Chairman, and I commend you
and Mr. Hobson for putting a great bill together and stand to ask our
Members to reject this amendment.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the passion of my
good friend from Ohio as he talks about cut after cut after cut, and I
would just remind him that this amendment, this amendment, would reduce
the overall bill by 1 percent which, Mr. Chairman, as you know, is a
3.3 percent increase over last year. So nobody is talking about cutting
anything.
That might be the problem here in Washington. This would be a 1
percent reduction on the remarkable amount of increased money that the
majority party has brought with this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Kline).
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding and for his leadership here. I think many of us miss the
presence of our former colleague Mr. Hefley from Colorado, and I am
very pleased to see that Mr. Price has stepped up to fill that gap,
because what we are talking about here is trying to control runaway
spending.
We are spending billions and billions of dollars, and this proposal
suggests that we try to pare back 1 percent, $316 million in this bill.
Some speakers from the other side have said when the Republicans were
in charge, the Republicans spent too much. In fact, the gentleman from
Ohio just reminded us of that. He is right. Republicans, when we were
in the majority, spent too much.
But the Democrat answer to spend more just doesn't make sense. We are
increasing spending here by billions and billions of dollars, and that
apparently is backed up by a budget which is reportedly balanced in 5
years by giving us the largest tax increase in American history. That
is how you balance the budget in 5 years, with the level of spending
that is being proposed here today, billions of dollars too much.
My friend, the great gentleman from Georgia, is proposing a 1
percent, 1 percent across-the-board cut. I commend him for that.
We are spending too much. Let's get this under control. This is a
very modest proposal. I commend him for it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify something. In
2008, there will not be a tax increase. And no one has to believe me,
Mr. Chairman. No one has to believe our friends on the other side. What
the American people need to do is keep their tax forms from this year
and compare them to their tax forms from next year. There will be zero
increase in taxes.
This is a balanced budget, which the other side has not done, and it
makes strategic investments so that we can create alternative energy
resources here so we reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for
yielding me time. I will try to cover my points in those 3 minutes.
I just want to remind the members of the committee, of the Congress,
of the body, that this bill came from the subcommittee with full
support of the subcommittee members, with the ranking member and the
chairman in strong support, with a very good and thoughtful look at
what energy and water expenditures ought to be.
There are increases in moneys that are investments in flood control,
in dam safety, in putting money into dealing with our ports which need
dredging, things of that sort. There are substantial increases, that is
true, in renewable energy, which is the one place where we can really
get at our dependence upon oil that comes from very unstable parts of
this world.
There were some wonderful recommendations that in large part are a
balance between nuclear nonproliferation, so important, because that is
where our real danger is to the security of this country in the future,
our major danger, versus some unnecessary expenditures in nuclear
weapons development, nuclear weaponry development. That recommendation
is here.
We have had about 12 hours now of debate in this committee with 50
amendments, with offers of amendments to cut and reduce, offers of
amendments to increase expenditures, to shift expenditures. There are
some that have been adopted. Most of them have been refused. But
everybody has had a chance. And the basic body of the bill remains as
it was, as it was recommended by the chairman and the ranking member of
the committee with the support of the subcommittee and the
Appropriations Committee.
Here now we have a 1 percent reduction which attempts at this late
date, after all those amendments have been dealt with one by one,
increases and decreases, and the issues have been discussed, then to
reduce by 1 percent, $300-plus million, which then has an effect on all
those earlier decisions that have been made by this committee as a
whole.
So I would hope that this amendment would not be adopted. I think
that this is a basically irresponsible way of going about budgeting. If
you can't deal with the issues and then come to a conclusion on the
budget that you have adopted in that process, then one should not do
what is being proposed here. I hope that the amendment will be
resoundingly defeated.

[[Page H6777]]

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire of the time
remaining on each side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Indiana has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.
I appreciate again the comments of my good friend from Ohio, who
previously talked about there being no tax increase in 2008, and he
urged the American people to take a look at their tax bill.
He is right. There won't be, because of Washington shenanigans.
Because what we do here is budget in a 5-year window, and in fact the
largest tax increase in the history of our Nation will hit the American
people, curiously, Mr. Chairman, after the next election.
But you can check the record. It is indeed there, and all the
American people have to do is recognize that, and they will. And they
will.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

{time} 1530

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very enlightening
debate. Fortunately, I think the American people are smart enough to
understand this debate. They understand that, for example, even though
there won't be a tax increase before the election in 2008, that
policies that get adopted this year will force tax increases in future
years. I think they understand that.
I want to comment on the remarks of the committee Chair who just
spoke. I think he made a compelling case for leaving the priorities
that are in this bill precisely where they are. I think your committee,
with the help of the minority, worked diligently to produce a sound
product, a product that attempts to allocate the resources amongst the
various priorities.
But there will come a time when this Nation wakes up. There will come
a time when we will have to be responsible about spending on this
floor.
The speaker before the last speaker criticized Republicans and said,
``You spent too much on your watch,'' and he was dead right.
This is the Hefley amendment. I voted for the Hefley amendment every
time, trying to get us to cut 1 percent. Let me explain why. Because in
1994 when I was elected to Congress, and in 1995 and in 1996, we went
across America, Republicans and Democrats alike, and we asked the
American people if they wanted us to continue spending at that pace or
if they were willing to see us reduce that pace of spending to reduce
the burden on our children and our grandchildren.
One after another of them rose and said, ``Don't cut my program'';
but one after another of them, every single one of them that I heard,
at field hearings in Prescott, Arizona, and in Wyoming and Montana,
said that if the cuts are even, if the cuts are evenly spread and fair
to everyone, then, yes, you are right. We have to rein in spending to a
level we can live with. That is what this amendment does. It is
responsible. It is good public policy. I urge my colleagues to adopt
it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would like to clarify. The other side is trying
to say that if there are tax increases in the future, it all has to do
with this bill which we just increased by a few hundred million. It has
nothing to do with the $3 trillion debt that was run up in the last 6
years, Mr. Chairman. The 2007 tax returns versus next year's, the
American people need to look at them, no increase. Our friends are
saying ``the largest tax increase in the history of the United States''
and it happens 2 years from now. I thought history was in the past. For
2008, check your returns, no tax increases.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, the American people have listened to
Democrats and Republicans blame each other about budget crises. I
became a Member in 1995. I left for 5 years. How things change. The
parties change names, but it is the same tactics.
The American people want us working together on the budget. This
amendment is a minimal effort of just saying to the American people,
look, we recognize that even the best operation and the best budget can
still be operated on 99 percent of what was projected. It is a
minimalist kind of approach to this. If you can't vote for a 1 percent
across-the-board cut, go to your town hall meetings, go into your
communities and say, well, I really didn't want to do it because of
what it symbolized. The fact is that this is the minimum of what we can
do to say, look, we are trying to get back in the discipline of doing
the right thing by the American taxpayer.
And if you can't vote for a 1 percent, how can you expect in the long
run to be able to control the Federal budget, and that is exactly what
the constituency wants us to do.
So I just say dump the Republican and Democrat argument. You get back
to the fact that you have a motion that says quite clearly: we will
make the effort of a 1 percent reduction across the board. That is a
very small, little step towards fiscal responsibility and let's get
together, Democrats and Republicans, and do the right thing and support
the new Hefley amendment as authored by the gentleman from Georgia. If
you can't do that, please don't think you can stand up and carry the
mantle of self-righteousness when it comes to budget. We all bear the
responsibility. Even those of us who weren't here bear the
responsibility of doing the right thing and dumping the jargon about
being Democrat or Republican and the other guy is at fault. We all bear
that responsibility, and the voters and the taxpayers will blame all of
us, regardless of our party affiliation, if we can't even make this
minimal stance of a 1 percent across-the-board.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I have
one remaining speaker, and it is my understanding it is my prerogative
to close.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, is it the chairman's prerogative
to close?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Yes, the chairman is defending the bill, and it
is his prerogative to close.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, let me first say I support this 1 percent,
just like I did last year and the year before. Just to make sure that
the American public understands, this is 1 percent off of the nearly 5
percent increase. So it isn't even a reduction from last year's number
of 1 percent. It is simply shaving 1 percent off of the increase.
I came down here because I heard some of the speakers on the other
side, or at least one, that was talking about they had to correct the
problems of the Republicans spending like drunken sailors, which kind
of amazed me considering that the debate on the House floor in the last
2 years on appropriations was how we weren't giving enough money.
When I looked up to see what the Republican bill was last year when
we were in the majority, it was a 1.5-percent increase versus the
nearly 5 percent this time. So they are up here talking about an
increase of about 2\1/2\ times, maybe three times what we originally
proposed last year. And by the way, I supported the 1 percent when it
was only a 1.5-percent increase below the rate of inflation. I think
that is the type of drunken spending that the American taxpayers told
us in the last election that they did not want. They want that type of
fiscal restraint, not two or three times the rate of inflation. They
want fiscal responsibility injected back into our reasoning and the
bills that we are passing.
So I think a reduction of this 4.5-, 4.7-percent increase is simply
the responsible thing to do.
The gentleman from Georgia, I appreciate you bringing this 1 percent.
I think that this is something that the voters, strike voters, the
American public thinks we should be doing this year. We come off the
heels last week of voting for bills with double-digit increases. So
this is a time to inject some reasonableness.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I think this has been a helpful debate. I want to recognize the
efforts of Congressman Hefley in the past and urge my colleagues to
support the former Hefley amendment of a 1-percent reduction in the
increase, Mr.

[[Page H6778]]

Chairman. As I remind our colleagues, the portion appropriated for this
area of Federal spending last year was $30.2 billion. This year the
request in this bill is for $31.6 billion. This amendment would simply
reduce it by 1 percent. It would be a 3.3-percent increase. It would be
a symbolic decrease, but it would be a recognition that Washington
needs to get its fiscal house in order.
My good friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the
importance of reducing spending. But yet we see a significant increase
over, as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) just said,
significantly over what we brought last year. Yes, it would be a
symbolic decrease, but it would ever so slightly reduce that slope,
that increasing slope of Federal spending. I think that is indeed what
the American people desire.
Spending in this bill, as in other appropriations bills that are
coming before us, will be allocating money, Mr. Chairman, that the
Congress doesn't have. The Congress doesn't have it, and it continues
to spend more than it takes in. I think it is imperative that we harken
back and remember that wonderful Reagan admonition that Washington
spends too much, it is not that it doesn't gain enough revenue. There
is certainly enough revenue to provide for appropriate services.
And I will be the first to tell my colleagues that there are
wonderful programs within this bill. The question is whether or not we
are going to demonstrate to the American people that we have the fiscal
responsibility, the reasonable standards in terms of what ought to be
spent at the Federal level based upon what has been spent in the past
and the incredible hardworking American taxpayers who send their money
year after year after year. I urge my colleagues to support this
commonsense 1-percent reduction.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield such time as
he may consume to a member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, Joel Hefley was a dear friend of mine. We
worked together on the Ethics Committee. I have to tell you, Joel and I
would talk about his 1 percent across-the-board cuts. While the
Republicans were in the majority, they failed. They failed because
Republicans and Democrats knew that in this particular bill, Energy and
Water, you had the chairman and the vice chairman working in
cooperation with Republicans and Democrats looking at the priorities
and developing a bill that would invest in the infrastructure of
America.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, for many years the investment in
infrastructure has either been static, and in many cases has been
declining. Hearing after hearing after hearing, we had businessmen,
barge owners, operators, grain operators coming to the committee and
saying you need to invest more money in the infrastructure of America
because it is the commerce that the Mississippi River handles. It is
the commerce that comes into our harbors. It is the commerce that is
driving America and making it a productive country.
And so when you have the business community, elected officials coming
to you and telling you that there is a decline in the investment in
infrastructure, it is the Subcommittee on Energy and Water that begins
to respond to that need.
As an example, in Brunswick, Georgia, the request came that we need
to deepen the harbor so that the harbor can allow more ships to come in
and be able to continue that driving engine, commerce.
In Sacramento, California, we have had untold numbers of public
officials come to tell us you need to invest in flood control because
we are this close to being over our heads in water. Again, an
investment in infrastructure.
In Kentucky we had a Congressman in our markup in to ask why is it
that my particular flood control project, an investment in
infrastructure, is not being considered in an earmark. We are being
threatened by not having this flood control structure. Again, an
investment in infrastructure to protect our communities.
We had people from New York and New Jersey: we need to deepen the
harbor. We have to make sure that the ships coming from overseas not
only have secured cargo, but that we have cargo coming in so that the
commerce can continue to develop.
Oakland Harbor, Los Angeles Harbor, Long Beach Harbor, Galveston,
Corpus Christi, New Orleans.
The New Orleans elected officials came and said we need development
of flood control structures in New Orleans in order to protect if there
is another hurricane.
But the one that impressed me the most was the people along the
Mississippi. They said grain, coal, a number of products go up and down
the Mississippi. It is the blood line of commerce for this country. And
the problem we have is that our locks are not working properly.
So in this bill we are investing in improving, and in some cases
bringing in new locks, so that from the most northern point of this
country to the most southern point of this country along the
Mississippi River, we can have commerce, so grain can be moved, coal
can be moved, so this country can be competitive on a global basis.

{time} 1545

So I tell you, Mr. Chairman, this work, the Energy and Water
Subcommittee bill that is before us, it deals with infrastructure
development. A 1 percent cut would begin to deny many of these
improvements that we have, improvements that the American public have
asked us to do because they know it is a sound investment. They want to
make sure that commerce continues. They want to make sure that they're
protected.
And as Joel Hefley would probably tell me, Ed, I couldn't do it in
the majority, I probably won't do it in the minority, because the
American people think that 1 percent is not the proper way to go,
because I would like to have that money that belongs to me to be
invested in order that we protect our communities and ensure that we
have commerce.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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 Georgia will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. 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. 15 offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 503. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby
reduced in the amount of $1,130,000,000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) and a
Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank Congressman John Campbell of California who originally was the
proponent of this amendment. I am very happy to adopt this amendment
because I believe that it truly expresses the concerns of the people of
our country.
The Energy and Water appropriations bill, which spends $31.6 billion,
is $1.13 billion, or 3.7 percent over the President's request. This
amendment would reduce overall funding in the bill to the President's
request, thus saving taxpayers $1.13 billion. If this amendment passes,
the total amount of spending in the Energy and Water bill will still be
$175 million greater than last year.
By enacting the largest tax increase in American history, the
Democrat

[[Page H6779]]

budget allows for $23 billion in spending over that of the President's
budget request. This amendment is designed to save the taxpayers $1.13
billion which will reduce some of the unnecessary increases in Federal
spending this year which is fueled by the huge tax increases. This is
an amendment that is an across-the-board reduction that does not
destroy, interrupt or terminate needed projects, many that we just
heard about that are very, very worthy. But it does provide for our
Federal administrators to reduce expenditures by limiting travel,
delaying filling employee vacancies, postponing equipment purchases and
other innovative and creative initiatives to save taxpayers' money.
Even the reduction of growth is an increase of spending of $175
million.
Prior to being elected to Congress, I served in the State senate of
my home State and over and over again we would work toward across-the-
board budget cuts and each time that we were able to achieve these, we
were able to maintain the programs to benefit the citizens of our
State; but, indeed, the programs were not terminated, they were made
better. I have faith in government employees that they can accommodate
a 3.7 percent reduction without hurting recipients of worthy projects.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota, Congressman John Kline.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Wilson,
for his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise because we have had a debate here about how much
money we're spending and how much we're taxing. There seems to be some
confusion about that. We on this side of the aisle have been accused of
having spent too much money. And, as I said in discussing an earlier
amendment, I fully agree. The Republican majority spent too much money.
But what we have before us is a proposal to spend even more money while
we're getting criticism for having spent too much, and I have a hard
time balancing those out.
We need to get spending under control. And we've had my colleagues,
colleague after colleague have come to the floor to propose amendments
to make modest reductions in what appears to be runaway spending,
billions of dollars too much. And then we've had an argument that said,
well, we're not taxing too much because we're not going to add to the
tax burden in 2008. I suppose that remains to be seen before the
process is over, but I think it's undeniable that the Democrats passed
a budget which in order to balance in 5 years results in the largest
tax increase in American history. And as the spending goes up to make
that match in the end, they force all of the tax cuts which we have
fought so hard to get into place, that have spurred this economy and
caused jobs to be created and rapid growth in the economy, all those
tax cuts would go away, taxes would go up, and we would in fact see the
largest tax increase in American history. So we have a huge tax
increase, huge spending, that's not the way to see this economy grow.
Let's take some steps to curb this explosive rate of spending and stop
the semantic arguments here. Let's slow down this runaway spending.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Inquiry. Does the chairman have any
witnesses at this time or any further testimony?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I simply have two speakers and would prefer to reserve
at this moment.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, again what we're talking
about with this particular amendment is to reduce the overall
expenditures to the President's request, which is a reduction of $1.13
billion. It's a 3.7 percent reduction. But actually because this is the
request of the President, there has been an increase of nearly $175
million. We've heard the presentation, very eloquent, a few minutes ago
of many of the wonderful programs and projects, and when you think of
Energy and Water appropriations, I think of extraordinarily important
appropriations, indeed, the infrastructure of our country, it's so
important, as to the alternative fuels, promoting the alternative
fuels. But, indeed, I have seen firsthand in my experience working in
public office since 1984, you can reduce and still provide for the
services to be provided.
I know that again in my State experience one time, we had a midyear
budget crisis where, in fact, the State budget was reduced by 7\1/2\
percent and we had previously proposed that there be a budget reduction
of 1 percent. Unfortunately, it was turned down. It was incredible
that, indeed, with the 7\1/2\ percent across-the-board cut by people of
another political party from me, it worked. And the services were still
provided. That was, in effect, almost a 15 percent across-the-board
cut.
And so what we are proposing today, I believe, is very reasonable and
responsible and in the interest of the taxpayers of the United States.
At this time I am happy to yield to the minority leader of the House
of Representatives, a person who is so widely respected, the
Congressman from Ohio, John Boehner.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The distinguished minority leader is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate my colleague for yielding and I appreciate
the work he is doing bringing this amendment to the floor.
I came to Washington 17 years ago because I thought government was
too big, I thought it spent too much and didn't think that it was being
held accountable. And the reason I am here this afternoon on this bill
is because this amendment offered by Mr. Wilson and Mr. Campbell will
reduce the overall spending level in this bill to the President's
request.
The President submitted a budget back in January that said we can
balance the budget over the next 5 years without raising taxes. But to
do that, it's dependent upon us holding the line on spending. Even at
the President's level, there is an increase over last year, and I
believe that bringing the level of spending down in this bill to what
the President requested puts this bill in a position to actually move
through the process and become law.
If you looked over the course of this year, our friends on the other
side of the aisle have a budget that will balance over the next 5
years, but with the largest tax increase in American history. If we
want to review the bidding on spending here in Washington this year,
you go back to February with a CR that was some $6 billion over the
President's request. And then we can look at the supplemental spending
bill for Iraq and Katrina and other things that was $17 billion over
the President's request. And now if we look at the appropriations
process that we're in the midst of, we have an additional $20 billion
over and above where the President is.
At the end of the day, the American people want to keep more of the
money that they earn and want to send less of that money here to
Washington. And I think to the extent we can hold the line on spending,
we're protecting the taxpayers, protecting their wallets.
I think this is a modest amendment that reduces the spending in this
bill by some $1.13 billion, it's the right move, and our colleagues
ought to support the amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
my good friend and colleague from New York, a member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Israel.
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my distinguished chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have listened
very carefully to my friends from the other side suggest that this bill
is just too expensive, that it needs to be cut. Well, let me tell you
what's far more expensive.
Thirty years ago, President Carter told the American people that we
were going to declare the moral equivalent of war on foreign oil. And
the only thing we've managed to do in the 30 years since then is double
our imports of oil from the Middle East and cut investments in
renewable research and development by about 80 percent. So we tried it
your way. We cut those investments 80 percent in the past 30 years. And
what's the result? We've

[[Page H6780]]

doubled our imports of foreign oil from the Persian Gulf.
You want to know why this is so expensive a problem? It is a military
vulnerability. Two years ago, the Department of Defense spent $10.6
billion on basic energy costs because of this dependence on foreign
oil. $10.6 billion paid for by the taxpayer. Of that, the Air Force
spent half, $4.7 billion, on one thing: buying fuel, which is also paid
for by the American taxpayer.
Now, I believe, as many of my friends do, in robust military budgets.
I am a very strong supporter of our military and I believe we need to
spend what it takes to defend freedom, and my friends would agree. The
problem is this: Because of the fact that we tried it their way and our
dependence on foreign oil has actually increased, we're in a position
right now where we are borrowing money from China to fund our military
budgets to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to fuel our military to
protect us from China and the Persian Gulf. A $550 billion military
budget and we have to borrow the money from our adversaries. And, guess
what, our taxpayers have to pay the interest on the money that we're
borrowing from our adversaries to fuel our military to protect us from
our adversaries. It makes no sense whatsoever. We've tried it their
way, Mr. Chairman, and it hasn't worked.
I don't believe any one of my colleagues would suggest that we should
cut the Department of Defense budget. We all believe in national
security, and I'm with my colleagues on that.

{time} 1600

But as a matter of national security, we should not cut this budget
either, because this budget is a national security budget, because it
is not acceptable that a Stryker combat vehicle that is ferrying our
troops into some very dangerous environments gets between 5 and 10
miles to the gallon, sounds like a 1957 Buick and is a loud, moving
target. It is not acceptable that our C-17s burn 3,000 gallons of fuel
an hour and that we have to rely on our adversaries to fuel those
systems.
I would appeal to my colleagues on the other side that just as they
are strong supporters of the Department of Defense and would never
think to suggest just a 1 or 2 percent reduction in military budgets,
the same should hold true on this.
I would add one other thing, if I may, Mr. Chairman. One of the
things that worries all of us, and worries our military planners, is
not just the threats that we see in Iran, and we passed a resolution
earlier today that I supported that would take a hard line on Iran and
its development, attempted development on nuclear weapons, not just
those things, but loose nukes. But the fact that there is a tremendous
quantity of nuclear materials proliferating around the world that we
have to find, identify and secure, because we don't want a rogue nation
packing those loose nukes into a suitcase and bringing them across our
borders.
Well, this bill contains funding for the Global Threat Reduction
Initiative, whose mission is to locate, secure and remove and
facilitate disposal of high-risk vulnerable nuclear material and
equipment locations. It does increase the President's funding level. I
think the American people would want us to find the money to secure
those loose nukes. Now, maybe that means there is a little less money
to go to Halliburton and no-bid contracts.
My final point is this: the other side continues to say that this is
a tax increase. It is not a tax increase. It will not be a tax
increase. The other side is not accurately explaining this to the
American people, is the most diplomatic way I can put it.
I will say this, it does require different priorities. The other side
has no problem allowing big corporations to register themselves in
offshore P.O. boxes so that they can avoid paying their fair share of
taxes. The other side has no problem funding and bull-dozing money to
Halliburton in no-bid contracts. The other side had no problem
shoveling tax cuts to the richest oil company executives on Earth.
If the money was there for that, the money is there for this bill.
Maybe we need to take the money from those priorities and put them into
this priority.
For America's energy security, for a strong future, and to get our
troops out of those Stryker combat vehicles that are loud gas guzzlers
and put them on something safer. This bill makes those investments.
Those investments are, ultimately, in our national security.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to
reduce the size of this bill, the cost of this bill.
I have got to tell you I grew up in the late 1970s. I remember pretty
distinctly the policies of Jimmy Carter. I remember the high
unemployment rates. I remember the high inflation rates.
I recall getting my driver's license and getting that 1970 station
wagon to drive and waiting in a line for gas two blocks long; and when
you got there, there was one pump yet working and the others had the 11
by 8 piece of paper that said ``out of gas'' on it. I think those are
the policies which some of my friends on the left are advocating today.
I just have to openly wonder how well Honda Civics would work in the
sand in Iraq if we can't use military vehicles because of their gas
mileage.
But let's get back to the real issue of what we're talking about here
today, and that's ways of controlling spending. Yes, it is showing a
difference between the majority party and the minority party in the
sense of spending.
We are here fighting to reduce the size of their bill. We would like
to bring it to last year's level where it was only a 1.6 percent
increase, and they were yakking about how we needed to spend more, and
when they got in control, they were able to do that.
They have a bill here before us today that increases the spending way
above the President's request. This amendment just simply brings it
down, $1.13 billion to the President's request. So either way we can
fight to reduce the size of their bills, and last week's bill. Again,
they were both double-digit increases.
I think this type of debate is healthy. It also does show, as one of
the previous speakers mentioned, that there are policy differences.
There are priority differences between the two parties, and we are
showing how we are the party of fiscal responsibility.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, indeed, as I am here,
proposing a cut of around 3.7 percent, this is across the board.
Actually, it's an affirmation of the significance of the projects that
are in the bill.
I am not saying they should be terminated. I am saying that they
should be stalled. I am certainly not indicating they should be
interrupted or destroyed. My being here is to propose that there be a
reduction in spending, except that it's really a reduction to the
President's recommendation, which is an increase in spending of $175
million.
But it is a savings to the taxpayers of $1.13 billion. That's,
indeed, a key reason that I ran for Congress was to, indeed, protect
the taxpayers, look out for the taxpayers, make sure that the
government programs that are so worthy are handled well.
At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the Congressman
from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from South
Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, let's be clear what we are doing here: we are not
cutting anything. We are proposing to do less of an increase in this
bill than what has been proposed by the majority party.
Just to illustrate, as I have done before, what I will do again,
because I keep hearing talk about cuts: one equals one; two is more
than one, even if you want three. This bill, what we have proposed is
to have two, is to spend more than the one that was spent before, to
spend two. There are some people who would like to spend three. We
think that's too much.
We think that we have a deficit. We think that we have seen the
majority party propose to increase taxes by however much money they
happen to spend. We think they should spend less. We think government
should spend less so that the taxpayers can keep more of their own
money that they earned.
Mr. Chairman, we can get this budget under control. We can get this
deficit under control without cutting spending and without raising
taxes, if we just

[[Page H6781]]

control how much we increase the spending by.
Instead of increasing it by 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 percent, 9, over 9
percent, which overall has been proposed in this budget, if, instead,
we only increase it by 6, not a bad increase, but just increase it by
6, and we do that year after year, we will eliminate this deficit
without digging more into the taxpayers' pockets, because we already
dig into their pockets too much.
So that's what this whole debate, that's what the amendment of the
gentleman from South Carolina is about, just controlling the growth of
spending to something that is reasonable but manageable and will enable
people to keep their own money and this government to return to a
fiscal responsibility position without deficits.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of debate and
discussion about this legislation over the last 2 days. I certainly
have tried to emphasize that it represents an investment in this
country. Some of that investment is represented by cuts we made, over
50 cuts in programs we did not feel were commensurate with the value of
the monies that the taxpayers have sent to the United States
Government.
Many of those other dollars have been invested in programs we believe
inure to the benefit of people's health and safety, to the movement of
commerce and to the growth of our economy.
I am going to be the last speaker on our side on this amendment and
would conclude in another vein, and that is the national security of
our country. I think most people, when they look at the Department of
Energy, believe that you have a Department that spends all of its money
on energy and energy research.
As our colleagues know, this simply is not true. Only $1 out of about
every $10 inure to that purpose. Most of it deals with cleaning up
nuclear waste. Much of it is keeping our nuclear arsenal secure, as
well as making sure that it is safe and reliable.
Our national security is at stake when we consider many of the
elements in this bill. We are charged in this subcommittee to try to
make wise decisions as to what pertains to people and this country's
security and what does not.
I would draw attention to a fundamental issue that affects every one
of us, and that is the possibility of the nuclear conflict. There is a
proposal pending by the administration to build a new nuclear weapon.
We had to make what I think is a very profound decision on behalf of
the people of this country as to what course of action should we take.
We decided, in a bipartisan fashion on this subcommittee, to not
proceed for a number of reasons. One is essentially what the
perspective of our allies and those who do not have our interests at
heart internationally would be if we proceed.
In testimony before the subcommittee, former chairman of the Armed
Services Committee in the Senate, Sam Nunn, who is only one of two
people I have ever met in my 57 years who has been nominated for a
Nobel Peace Prize, the other being my senior Senator in Indiana,
Senator Lugar, said that on the RRW itself, the new nuclear weapon, if
Congress gives a green light to this in our current world environment,
I believe this will be misunderstood by our allies, exploited by our
adversaries, complicate our work to prevent the spread and the use of
nuclear weapons. I will not fund additional work on RRW at this time.
Another concern we had on the subcommittee is what is our strategy
for the use or, hopefully not the use, of those weapons, as well as our
strategy as far as eliminating weapons internationally. We have not
developed as a Nation and as a government a new strategy subsequent to
the end of the Cold War. We have had regional conflicts thereafter in
policies like Kosovo. We have had the events of 9/11, and we find
ourselves in conflict the most today.
We should have a broad national policy, not the policy of the Bush
administration or any administration, but a national policy that stands
the test of time through various administrations, as our last one did
for half a century, and a strategy that also lasts through Congresses
controlled by Republicans, Congresses controlled by Democrats over a
generation; and that strategy does not exist.
I am very heartened that the Armed Services Committee, under the
leadership, particularly, of Subcommittee Chairman Tauscher, as well as
her ranking member, Mr. Everett, on your side of the aisle, has asked
for a commission to study that very issue.
I am also very concerned that in the past, beginning in the late
1990s, the taxpayers of this country have been asked to invest billions
of dollars in the so-called Stockpile Stewardship Program that I
support. It is to ensure this we do not have to perform nuclear tests,
but to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons.
But we were also told, by several administrations of both parties and
by the Department of Energy for over a decade, that we need the
National Ignition Facility built. Well, it's 6 years behind schedule,
and it's 226 percent over budget by a factor of $2.428 billion.
We were told by several administrations and the Department of Energy,
both parties, that we need the Microsystems Science Engineering and
Applications Lab at Sandia National Laboratory. That is currently 29.5
percent over budget.
We were told by administrations of both parties that we need a dual-
axis radiographic hydrotest facility. That is now 6 years behind. That
is 35 percent over budget. None of them have been completed. None of
them are going to come in on time.

{time} 1615

I would grant that the Advanced Simulation and Computational
Initiative has taken hold and has produced results and has been a
valuable investment.
To now, after more than a decade of investment that has not come to
total fruition, to make a hard turn in the road and start spending new
money on new construction without a strategy would be a mistake. And
this subcommittee has made a determination not to waste the American
taxpayers' dollars on that project.
We have asked, and it began 2 years ago under the leadership of then-
Chairman Hobson, that we have an arsenal of 10,000 nuclear warheads, we
have a Cold War complex. We need to rationalize and, in effect,
downsize that to meet the new threats to make sure that we are nimble,
that we are safe, and that we save the taxpayers as much money as
possible.
The administration has come back in and said, well, let us build a
new nuclear weapon by 2012. And you know what? We're going to take care
of the rationalization of the complex, and we're going to downsize and
we're going to do that in 2030.
My point is, I wish the administration and, in this case
particularly, the Department of Energy, had as much aggression and
commitment to downsizing the complex as they do on developing a weapon.
And what they also would suggest that we do, before we downsize is,
well, let's begin construction of this new nuclear weapon in the
existing complex. So now we will have the old and we will have the new.
And I think everyone, Mr. Chairman, knows the end of that story.
Nothing will ever change.
It's hard to attach an exact dollar and figure on that critical issue
of our national security. But many of the dollars we have saved and not
spent, and we have cut in this bill, is to make sure that we take the
right approach as far as our nuclear strategy and our nuclear safety,
and I am very proud of that.
I see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) on his feet. And if he
would want time, I would be happy to yield to him.
Mr. HOBSON. I just wanted to take a moment to comment that I really
appreciate the Chairman's very thoughtful comments, especially on all
the issues that he talked about, but certainly, when it comes to NNSA
and the lack of management of the weapons systems.
The gentleman remarked to me over here, do we have 9,000 weapons, or
10,000 weapons? Well, the number we've been trying to get out for a
long time, cause it's a good news story. But we can't tell you here how
good news the story is, because it's still secure. And we've tried for
a number of years to get

[[Page H6782]]

out this issue of how many weapons we have and to get this complex
sized appropriately.
But we're very disturbed, in a bipartisan way, about the management
of the entire Department of Energy. And I want to associate myself with
the gentleman's comments and his opposition to the amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. And Mr. Chairman, I want people to truly appreciate
Mr. Hobson's dedication as a member of not only this subcommittee, and
as chairman for 4 years, but as a member of the Defense Subcommittee
when there was a similar proposal several years ago and he thought it
was the incorrect proposal. He stopped what I think was incorrect
public policy from taking place. He saved the taxpayers of this country
money.
And the only reason today I believe we have even a 20-30 proposition
from the administration as far as downsizing the complex, that I find
totally unsatisfactory but at least it is a proposal, is because of the
work that Mr. Hobson did. And I thank him for that very much, and do
ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. 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 South
Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
Page 40, after line 18, insert the following:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Secretary of Energy to designate any
geographic area as a national interest electric transmission
corridor under section 216(a) of the Federal Power Act (as
added by section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005), and
none of the funds made available in this Act may be used by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take any action
related to the processing or issuance of a permit under
section 216(b) of the Federal Power Act.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to extend my appreciation and
gratitude to Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson for putting
together a very fine bill.
However, what we want to do is oppose a certain part of this, denying
funding for monopolistic corporations to impede upon States rights and
people's private personal proper rights. It's an important amendment
and I ask everyone to consider it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf).
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, this is going to be the only vote that you're
going to have on this issue. When the power lines are coming through
your district, and this is coming through your district, how will you
explain to your constituents, to your neighbors, your friends, your
local elected officials, your farmers, that you had a chance to slow
this down and you didn't do it?
How are you going to tell them that you sided with the power
companies and not with the citizens?
This is a time out. It will give us a chance to reexamine the
process.
These corridors divide communities, neighborhoods. They destroy
landscapes. In fact, the current corridor in the Mid-Atlantic includes
Antietam, where 20,000 people died in 1 day. We need to make sure that
we take time to do it right, and don't bow to the scare tactics and the
false Dear Colleague letters.
This is your first and likely your only vote on this issue. Don't let
this vote come back to haunt you. Voting against the Hinchey amendment
means you don't want to make sure these corridors are sited properly.
I strongly urge the Members to vote aye for the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Hinchey-
Wolf amendment to force the DOE to take a time-out from its rush to
subject giant stretches of this country to eminent domain for energy
interests.
In my State, in my district, the New York Regional Interconnect, for
instance, NIRE, is an internationally financed private entity which
will receive eminent domain rights to seize private land for private
profit. It would remove the State environmental review process and all
property rights and States rights from the equation and give that all
to FERC. I think this is something that needs much closer examination.
New York City, I would reassure my colleagues from downstate, does
not need NIRE to have power, especially not this route. In fact, there
are alternate routes that the State could and would look at if it had
the time that it would normally have under CCRA.
I urge support for the Hinchey-Wolf amendment in the interest of
property rights and States rights.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts rise as
the designee of the gentleman from Indiana?
Mr. OLVER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Member from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the Hinchey-Wolf amendment.
Today, more than ever, America needs a transmission grid that will
deliver reliable and affordable electricity to consumers across the
Nation. The Energy Information Agency projects that electricity
consumption will increase 43 percent by 2030. Other studies project
growth and demand to grow by 19 percent over the next 10 years, while
power capacity will grow by only 6 percent over that same time. It
stands to reason we're going to have to move power where we have excess
to where we need it.
Recognizing the fact the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPACT, allowed
for the designation of national interest corridors where congestion in
the electricity grid is jeopardizing reliable service and raising the
cost to electricity consumers, this designation is not a mandate that a
transmission line be built but, instead, an incentive for stakeholders
to address the grid capacity issues. FERC is authorized to get involved
only if the State is unwilling to or cannot act, then only after
exhaustive Federal considerations.
The Hinchey-Wolf amendment, unfortunately, seeks to block funding for
the National Electricity Transmission Corridors as contained in the
authorizing legislation. Failing to address congestion and transmission
infrastructure will do absolutely nothing for electricity consumers who
will see their energy bills continue to climb in the future. And more
blackouts.
Our constituents deserve a robust energy transmission infrastructure,
and EPACT encourages congested States to resolve the problems in a
timely manner. And we know the issue of blackouts, particularly in mid-
America to the Northeast.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hinchey-Wolf amendment because all
it will do is raise electric prices because we can't move power where
we really need it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Arcuri).
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this
amendment. And I'd like to start off by saying to my colleague that I
respect a great deal from Texas, this amendment is not about sharing
power. It's not about giving power from one part of the country to
another. It's about how do we do it. Do we do it in a thoughtful way?
Do we do it in a reasonable way? Or do we do it in a way by using
eminent domain, by running high power lines over people's land, by
taking people's land? Is that the American way? Is that the way we want
to have our energy policy dictated to the States and the localities? I
think not.

[[Page H6783]]

I think there is a better way to do it. There is a more thoughtful
way to do it. We are facing such a plan in New York, and it's ill-
conceived and poorly thought out. And that's not the way we should be
running our energy policy in this country. It should be in a more
thoughtful way.
I strongly support this amendment because we need to stand up to the
power companies and not let them take our land and not let them run
power lines over people's property.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to a
member of the committee, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of
the more important amendments we're going to deal with today.
America needs available power, and especially electric power. We have
a system that has not worked. The legislation doesn't give the Federal
Government the right to usurp States rights. It only gets involved when
multiple States can't get their job done. I was in State government for
19 years, and I wouldn't bet the farm on four PUCs adequately
performing on a time basis so we could connect our grid.
Here's what Bill Richardson said in 2001. ``The United States has a
first-rate economy. We're the Superpower of the world, the best
military, a booming technological economy, but we've got a grid that is
antiquated, that is Third World, that needs beefing up. We've got very
weak power transmission lines to connect our generation capacity.''
And here's what Sam Bodman said in 2006, a year ago. ``The Nation is
currently facing serious near problems in adequately delivering
electricity to its customers.''
It means we have to fix the grid. And we've been unable to get States
to work together collectively. This is a process that only kicks in
when the States can't get their job done.
Connecting this country is a national issue. I don't want my State in
charge of the national grid. I had a Governor's person come into my
office protesting a power line that was proposed. It had been off of
the table by the PGM for a year and a half and they didn't even know
it. It wasn't even up for consideration. And the three States that were
involved in the little piece that was left was not that State.
Folks, there's a lot of disinformation out here. The connectivity of
our electric system is vital to our economic future and we need a
process. This was put in the energy bill because it wasn't working,
because we couldn't upgrade our grid.
And two Secretaries of Energy and leaders across this country, the
Edison Institute, all say, don't pass this amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

{time} 1630

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, it is pretty clear from the record of
their activities that the Department of Energy has been in cahoots with
the electric utilities and they are running roughshod over Americans
everywhere.
My subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, held a hearing
on this exact matter, and we heard about concerns about the law and
about the Department of Energy's implementation.
These concerns include whether the Department of Energy would take
into account the protection of national parks, State parks,
conservation easements, and historical sites like battlefields when
determining where an electric transmission corridor should be
designated. The answer is they don't.
Whether the Department of Energy is considering the effects of a
corridor designation on the private property rights of landowners. They
did not.
Whether the Department is considering the environmental impact of
corridor designations. The answer is they did not.
Whether the Department of Energy is considering alternatives to
constructing new electric transmission lines, like demand-side
management, distributed generation, and energy efficiency. They did
not.
Whether the Department has adequately considered the actual benefit
utility consumers would receive. They did not.
Support the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
The 2005 energy law required the Department of Energy to identify
geographical areas throughout the country where congestion in the
electric grid is raising prices and creating reliability concerns.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't think I have to tell anybody here on
the floor that we have an energy crisis in this country, and there are
a host of reasons why we have an energy crisis in this country. And I
think most of us understand that, frankly, there is not one silver
bullet that is going to resolve these issues.
The designation of this 2005 energy law creates interest of
corridors, clearly vests States with the primary responsibility for
siting transmission lines and considering what local or regional
benefits and consequences exist.
I think it is clear that in the 2005 law that we are seeking to amend
here that the national designation does not, does not, usurp State
authority for siting transmission lines. Yet we have a lot of
challenges on a regional basis.
In California we are attempting to try to work with Arizona to the
mutual benefit of citizens living in both States to try to allow for
the conductivity of that energy back and forth as well as to try to
maintain the stability of much-needed electricity for our constituents
in the Southwest.
This amendment, I think, would do great harm to that. And that is
precisely why I think the 2005 law was designed to address short-
sighted and narrow interests blocking the public good.
I ask that you reject this amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of this amendment.
As a member of the Energy Committee, I want to debunk a couple of
myths that have been perpetrated today in the debate. First of all,
that this was done hastily and thoughtlessly. The fact of the matter is
the issue of the transmission of electricity has been an issue for many
years. Many hearings have been held, much debate. It was part of the
Energy Act. What we have to do is resolve the issue how we get energy
from generator A to consumer B. In between we have to figure out how to
do that.
Myth number two is that this runs roughshod over States' and
communities' rights. The reality is that they are involved in the
process. They are involved in working with FERC, and FERC has to work
with them on the siting issues. And only when there is a conflict do
they get to break that conflict by rising above it.
We in this Nation have to figure out how we get electricity from
point A to consumer B. Think of this corridor as a transportation
highway. And when we think of it as a highway, we understand why we
have to do it this way.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment.
In Arizona, which is one of the fastest-growing States, we, as a
growing State, have enough energy and power to meet the power needs of
our State. But what has happened is that since California has a
moratorium on building generating plants, the tendency is to have power
plants be built in Arizona to generate power and then power lines to be
taken into California.
Very recently, about 1\1/2\ months ago, the Arizona State Corporation
Commission, which has the responsibility for siting the power lines,
rejected, and it was an issue of local control in that the power lines
that were being proposed would have endangered the wildlife. There were
problems with the enhancement features of our land.
The issue for me is local control; so that is why I support the
Hinchey amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Arcuri).
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in very strong opposition to
this bill.

[[Page H6784]]

This bill does so few things in terms of getting power to where it
needs to be. They talk about the fact that the original 1221 was
intended to help get power to places that need it to help alleviate
congestion. But, in fact, the NYRI proposal in New York State does
nothing whatsoever to prevent congestion. Rather, it does more to
create congestion than to alleviate it.
I strongly support the Hinchey-Wolf amendment because I believe that
using eminent domain to take people's property in order to run power
lines over it is the wrong thing. It is not the American way. It is not
what we came to Congress for. And I strongly oppose that.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I just want to point out, in response to a couple of remarks that
were made, this project that Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Hinchey, and I are
concerned with, which could happen anywhere in the country to any of
you, is not an interstate project. It occurs entirely within New York
State, mysteriously starting in Utica and mysteriously ending in the
little town of Campbell Hall. The other shoes have not dropped yet. But
in New York State's Environmental Quality Review Act, nothing gets
approved in under a year.
The proposal in section 1221 that after a year it kicks up authority
to FERC is patently meant to usurp State authority. You can't get a
subdivision, a power plant, a landfill, hardly any public project
approved that fast. It usually takes a draft environmental impact
statement; public comment; a final environmental impact statement; and
at long last, approval. But two years is the shortest that I have ever
seen. So to have this be one year means to me that the law was written
to usurp State authority.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
this amendment barring funding in this bill to be used to designate any
area as a ``national interest electric transmission corridor,'' or a
NIET. NIET designation and the corresponding authority that has been
given to FERC blatantly usurps States rights to designate and site
transmission lines in accordance with what is best for its citizenry.
There is a well-established successful history of States executing this
authority, and there is no real reason to take it away.
I understand there needs to be a holistic approach to our energy
policy, but absent clear and definitive reasons to grant this authority
to FERC, why are we allowing this Federal entity to circumvent State
siting decisions, State comprehensive energy plans, and State efforts
to promote energy efficiency and independence? It is clear more
analysis and consideration is needed.
This amendment would not strike this provision forever. Rather, it
would allow us more time to have debate, oversight, and public comment
on the issue. When this provision was passed in the last Congress by
the Senate and signed into law, it was a small piece of a broad energy
overhaul. It received no debate on this floor and no vote in this body.
Now, with the prospect of towering transmission lines running through
214 counties in 11 States across our Nation, and that is just the first
chapter, we must take a time out to reexamine this provision.
What will you tell your constituents when these towering lines are
denied by your State regulators, but mandated by FERC? You had your
vote today and you need to vote for this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Vote ``yes'' to allow
us to give needed consideration to the broad ramifications of proposed
NIET corridors and ensure that the rights of States are not unduly
trampled.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh).
Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment.
Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is an abridgement of
the rights of State and local governments to influence Federal policy
as it pertains to their communities. In fact, section 1221, regarding
the siting of overhead electricity transmission lines, permits the FERC
to outright ignore State decisions and local considerations.
We are elected to represent a select constituency and our States, to
advocate for their needs, and to advance our national interest. In this
instance those responsibilities collide.
I recognize that the Federal Government can and should do more to
modernize our Nation's aging and congested electric power
infrastructure. But the Northeast corridor proposal negatively impacts
the environment, decreases property values, poses health risks, and
hurts local property tax revenue. What is worse is that it provides
State and local regulatory agencies no ability to involve themselves.
By failing to support this amendment, Members of Congress will, in
essence, allow unknown bureaucrats in Washington, huddled around a
faceless map, to make critical decisions that affect the lives and
financial well-being of thousands of American families. Surely that
wasn't our Founding Fathers' intent. There has to be a better way than
to circumvent a State's decisions and disregard property owners'
rights. By supporting this amendment, we create time to find that
better way.
Mr. HOBSON. Might I inquire how much time I have left.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HOBSON. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. Chairman, I might say I am doing this out of courtesy to these
gentlemen. I happen to oppose the amendment, but I think they have a
right to be heard.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
We are not asking for a repeal. We are asking for time.
Again, this section, and it is amazing, was never voted on in the
House. The power industry lobbyists have been roaming this Hill. Your
constituents are back in their districts expecting you to represent
them.

{time} 1645

The corridor goes over and includes Gettysburg, where Lincoln gave
the Gettysburg Address. Antietam, 20,000 people died. No environmental
impact statement. No consideration of energy efficiency technology. No
consideration for historic lands. It is an assault on property rights.
In the last Congress, we all got worked up on the Kelo decision. This
is, in essence, whereby they can do this. And someone said, well, you
go through the State. The power companies won't really try to go
through the States. They will pro forma it, knowing that they can go to
FERC and FERC will do it.
Here's what the FERC administrator said: ``The authority to lawfully
deny a permit is critically important to the States for ensuring that
the interests of the local communities and the citizens are
protected.''
What the Commission does today, it's a significant inroad in
traditional State transmission citing authority. It gives States two
options: Either issue a permit, or we will do it for them. Obviously,
there is no choice.
I strongly urge, in the interest of all these things we're talking
about, a vote for the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have 3\1/2\ minutes left and
understand I have the right to close. What I would like to do is to
yield that 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York before he
seeks recognition, and would simply emphasize to the membership that I
am doing this as a courtesy. I am in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. But I would yield my remaining time to the gentleman from
New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. I want to express my deep appreciation to Chairman
Visclosky, not just for his excellent work in putting this
appropriations bill together, but also for yielding me this time.
It's important for every Member of this House to focus their
attention on what is happening here and what we are trying to do.

[[Page H6785]]

What we are dealing with here in the context of this appropriations
bill, which, if this amendment is successful, will function out there
for only 1 year, what we are attempting to deal with is an obscure
provision in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which hardly any Member of
this House, I bet, understood when that bill was passed because of the
obscurity of this provision.
What does this provision do? This provision tramples on States
rights. It says if any State, any State in the Nation is unable to
agree to a location for a high-tension transmission line, or if they
stipulate that certain corrections have to be made, if that takes more
than 1 year, which it would in almost every case, then the Federal
Energy Agency steps in and they designate where the corridor will go,
overriding States rights. I believe that this provision is contrary to
a very significant provision in the United States Constitution, and
this provision overrides States rights. That alone is good reason to
vote for this amendment.
But beyond that, that provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
which this amendment would stop in its tracks for just 1 year so that
we could give it further consideration, that provision stipulates that
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can exercise eminent domain on
people's private personal property. That means that FERC can condemn
anyone's private personal property in order to establish one of these
high-tension transmission corridors. That in itself is bad enough.
But that provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 goes even
further. It says that FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
can grant that power of condemnation of individual citizens' private
personal property rights to a private corporation so that the private
corporation can now go in and declare eminent domain and condemn
people's private personal property.
This provision in this Energy Policy Act overrides States rights and
the individual rights of private American citizens. It was put in there
inappropriately. Hardly anybody was aware of it when that bill passed.
Many of us voted against it nevertheless. Still, it is part of the law.
What we are saying here in this amendment to this appropriations bill
is give us another year to look at this issue. Let this issue be
considered more carefully. We should not have this kind of impediment
against States rights and people's private personal property rights.
I ask you, on behalf of all of your constituents, please join us in
support of this amendment.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, those of us who lived through the brown-
outs and rolling black-outs during the California energy crisis
remember well how difficult the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
was to deal with, and it pains me to vote for a national policy that I
hope will not need to be used.
However, after carefully reviewing the issue, I do not see a better
alternative. My vote is a vote to keep the lights on in Southern
California.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-
Wolf amendment and thank the authors for highlighting Section 1221 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which could allow DOE to designate large
transmission corridors across the country and override States'
decisions about transmission line placement.
Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that the energy requirements of our
growing economy will place increasing demands on existing transmission
facilities. In this regard, modernization is an important goal.
But we want to make certain that our State, county and local
communities are fully engaged in the process to determine where
transmission lines are located. Local leaders and property-owners have
the clearest view of how these lines will affect their communities.
The goal of this amendment is to allow additional time for
consideration of DOE and FERC's implementation process, so that there
will be more complete deliberation and consideration of this potential
regulation.
Municipal, county, and State officials want and need to be full
partners in the process that leads to the siting of new transmission
lines.
I urge support of the Hinchey-Wolf amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HINCHEY. 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 New York
will be postponed.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from Alaska.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to comment on the last speaker from New York
about States rights and private property rights.
The taking of land is dear to me. And this Congress took 147 million
acres of land in 1980 and made it into wilderness, parks and refuges. I
bring that up because, of that 147, 27 of them were picked by the
State. But we did it. That was private property.
But I am, Mr. Chairman, dismayed by this Congress, including Members
of my own party, who voted today to eliminate funding for the Denali
Commission and cripple the economic life to hundreds of small and
impoverished communities throughout rural Alaska.
I am standing here today in the well defending the funding for the
Denali Commission because the Federal Government has, time and time
again, as I mentioned, limited the ability of Alaskans to provide for
themselves. We have trillions of dollars' worth of resources in our
State; we haven't been able to produce them. This Congress has said no
to ANWR. Many of the speakers who just spoke voted no on ANWR, no to
any new mining, no to more Alaskan oil and natural gas. Not letting
Alaskans provide for themselves is economic terrorism by this body.
We sent over 15.5 billion barrels of oil through the pipeline. At
today's prices, that's equivalent to $1.1 trillion. We have trillions
of dollars' worth more of energy. If the State were allowed to manage
its own resources, we wouldn't need the commission. And we wouldn't be
sending trillions of American dollars overseas, to countries that hate
us, for the energy Americans could be producing at home.
Unfortunately, energy ignorance in this body is increasing almost as
fast as our dependence on foreign oil. Until Alaska is permitted to
produce its own resources for themselves and for America, Alaskans will
need the Denali Commission.
In 1998, Congress passed the Denali Commission Act. It provides job
training and other economic development services for rural communities,
chiefly in troubled communities, where unemployment exceeds 50 percent.
It promotes rural development by providing power generation and
transmission facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer
systems, and other infrastructure needs.
To give you an idea, my State of Alaska is 656,425 square miles, more
than twice the size of Texas. Individual Alaskans own less than 1
percent of their land. The Federal Government owns over 60 percent.
Flush toilets are just a luxury, and the Denali Commission tries to
provide good sanitation to all Alaskans that do not have the ability to
have potable water or remove the sewage they create. The fact is, I
doubt if any of you have ever heard of a honey bucket.
How many of my colleagues have communities in their districts with no
water and sewer? Well, Mr. Chairman, I have several. The Denali
Commission has brought these systems to many of my rural communities,
but there are still over 150 areas that suffer from poor sanitation and
a lack of safe drinking water.
There are rural communities that are completely isolated, and my
Alaskans can only get to and from their homes by boat or by small
plane. There are no roads connecting these communities outside of
Anchorage and Fairbanks.
The Commission also works carefully to ensure these communities have
telephones, a reliable supply of electricity, and in some cases,
Internet access.
Mr. Chairman, these are all things we in the Lower 48 take for
granted, but for thousands of Alaskans they are luxuries.

[[Page H6786]]

In 2006, the Denali Commission leveraged its funding to develop basic
infrastructure in over 100 Alaska communities. It invested money
towards replacing aging fuel tanks and upgrading rural power plants,
while at the same time pushing for wind generation, hydro, geothermal
and biomass energy projects.
In addition to constructing several essential village primary care
clinics, the Denali Commission funded major design initiatives for
needed replacement hospitals in Nome and Barrow. It has now completed
clinics in over 65 of these remote communities.
The Commission also provided funding to construct housing for
teachers in nine frontier communities, which is essential for
recruiting and retaining teachers to the remote areas of my State. The
Commission worked tirelessly each year to make sure that my Alaskans
are not treated like second-class citizens. The amendment will cripple
the Denali Commission's ability to provide these basic resources and
cripple many rural communities that are already on crutches.
Mr. Chairman, I can say this respectfully for one thing. We talk a
lot about the economics of this Nation and energy. This Congress has
lacked in a positive way. I am deeply disturbed that this amendment was
adopted by my own party and by the opposite party. I hope you
reconsider this when we go to conference.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
An amendment by Mr. Porter of Nevada.
Amendment No. 18 by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina.
An amendment by Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
Amendment No. 17 by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas.
Amendment No. 9 by Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado.
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Bishop of New York.
Amendment No. 14 by Mr. Jordan of Ohio.
An amendment by Mr. Shadegg of Arizona.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
Amendment No. 15 by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
An amendment by Mr. Hinchey of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Porter

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Porter) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Porter:
Page 21, strike line 22 and all that follows through page
24, line 9.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 80,
noes 351, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 516]

AYES--80

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capps
Chandler
Christensen
Cohen
Conyers
Crowley
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Gallegly
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gohmert
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Harman
Heller
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Kucinich
Lantos
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Markey
Matheson
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
Meehan
Miller, George
Nadler
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Porter
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rothman
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Souder
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOES--351

Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pascrell
Pastor
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Bean
Becerra
Davis, Jo Ann
Diaz-Balart, M.
Ortiz
Sullivan

{time} 1724

Ms. ROYBALL-ALLARD, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ and Mrs. CAPITO and Messrs.
LARSON of Connecticut, REYNOLDS, BROWN of South Carolina, KILDEE,
RUPPERSBERGER, SHULER, WALDEN of Oregon, TOWNS, TOM DAVIS of Virginia
and ELLISON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Ms.
ESHOO, Ms. LEE, Mrs. JONES of Ohio and Mrs. CHRISTENSEN and Messrs.
THOMPSON of California, PALLONE, ALEXANDER, BERMAN, RODRIGUEZ,
GRIJALVA, ENGEL, SIRES, MCDERMOTT, JACKSON of Illinois, WEINER, MEEHAN,
CONYERS, COHEN, LANTOS and CAMPBELL of

[[Page H6787]]

California changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Foxx

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 134,
noes 293, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 517]

AYES--134

Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Tiahrt
Upton
Walberg
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)

NOES--293

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--10

Becerra
Blunt
Davis, Jo Ann
Obey
Ortiz
Payne
Radanovich
Ros-Lehtinen
Shuster
Sullivan

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in this
vote.

{time} 1727

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Udall) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 518]

AYES--121

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Berkley
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Cole (OK)
Cubin
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Fallin
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Graves
Hall (TX)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Issa
Jindal
Jordan
Kind
King (NY)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
Melancon
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Scott (VA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Souder
Space
Stearns
Tancredo
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)

NOES--312

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bordallo
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)

[[Page H6788]]

Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Giffords
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Becerra
Davis, Jo Ann
Ortiz
Sullivan

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in this
vote.

{time} 1734

Messrs. CROWLEY, MOORE of Kansas, THOMPSON of Mississippi, TOM DAVIS
of Virginia and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BOOZMAN, MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida and MORAN of Kansas
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Neugebauer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 519]

AYES--133

Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Conaway
Cooper
Culberson
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Doolittle
Dreier
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Fortuno
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reichert
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOES--298

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--6

Becerra
Davis, Jo Ann
Gutierrez
Larsen (WA)
Ortiz
Sullivan

[[Page H6789]]

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in this
vote.

{time} 1738

Mr. PICKERING changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado
(Mrs. Musgrave) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 520]

AYES--166

Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kagen
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOES--267

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--4

Becerra
Davis, Jo Ann
Ortiz
Sullivan

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in this
vote.

{time} 1743

Mr. SALI and Mr. HUNTER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Bishop) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 521]

AYES--146

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Courtney
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Doggett
Donnelly
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kagen
Kennedy
Kind
Kingston
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Waxman
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

[[Page H6790]]

NOES--285

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meek (FL)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Waters
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

McCarthy (NY)

NOT VOTING--5

Becerra
Davis, Jo Ann
Ortiz
Paul
Sullivan

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in this
vote.

{time} 1749

Mr. GRAVES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California changed her vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Jordan) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129,
noes 301, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 522]

AYES--129

Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kagen
Keller
King (IA)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reynolds
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)

NOES--301

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield

[[Page H6791]]

Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Becerra
Davis, Jo Ann
Flake
McCrery
Ortiz
Paul
Sullivan

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in this
vote.

{time} 1752

Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Shadegg) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 523]

AYES--157

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Fallin
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Towns
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--274

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--6

Becerra
Davis, Jo Ann
Feeney
Ortiz
Paul
Sullivan

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains on this
vote.

{time} 1757

Mrs. MYRICK changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 524]

AYES--158

Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kagen
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions

[[Page H6792]]

Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)

NOES--275

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--4

Becerra
Davis, Jo Ann
Ortiz
Sullivan

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in this
vote.

{time} 1801

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Wilson) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 525]

AYES--138

Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kagen
Keller
King (IA)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)

NOES--295

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf

[[Page H6793]]

Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Becerra
Davis, Jo Ann
Ortiz
Sullivan

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1806

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Hinchey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 526]

AYES--174

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baird
Baldwin
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Drake
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortuno
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Jones (NC)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kind
Kirk
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Reichert
Rodriguez
Rothman
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Walsh (NY)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch (VT)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOES--257

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Chabot
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Honda
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Issa
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schiff
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sutton
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Becerra
Davis, Jo Ann
Diaz-Balart, L.
Jones (OH)
Ortiz
Sullivan

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1810

Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong
support of H.R. 2641, the ``Energy and Water Appropriations Act of
2007.'' I also rise to express my sincere appreciation to Mr.
Visclosky, the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee and his
Ranking Member, Mr. Hobson of Ohio, for working together in a
constructive effort to renew America's dependence on foreign oil and
cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Moreover, this bill merits our support because it increases the
Nation's commitment to long-term basic research by increasing the
Federal investment that is so critical to developing the next
generation of scientific breakthroughs. Federal funding for research
and development has declined steadily over the last decade, and sound
science has been compromised by political interference. This
legislation takes a giant step toward reversing this disturbing trend.
Mr. Chairman, in the 1970s, our Nation faced an energy crisis unlike
any we had ever experienced before. The OPEC oil embargo of 1973 led to
skyrocketing prices, long gas lines, gas sales only every other day,
and shortages where gas was simply unavailable. We experienced another
oil shock in the late 1970s and under the leadership of President Jimmy
Carter, America responded with unprecedented initiatives for energy
research. But over the years, gas prices came down, incentive was lost,
and these efforts fell by the wayside.
Today, we again face an energy crisis, only this time it is coupled
with the enormous challenge of addressing the reality of global climate
change. H.R. 2641 attempts to face these twin crises with over three
billion dollars to address global climate change--researching its
effects and working on technologies to slow it down--and investment in
renewable energy programs that both reduce greenhouse gases and help
our Nation meet its energy needs.
The bill cuts funding for poorly thought-out plans for nuclear
weapons recognizing that because of the enormous cost and the
importance to our national security they require smart strategies not
blank checks. Instead it works to keep Americans safe with a 75 percent
increase in funding for nuclear non-proliferation efforts. It also
funds the Army Corps of Engineers, strengthening our Nation's
navigation infrastructure and improving flood control programs.
Before I highlight some of the more attractive provisions of this
legislation, which by the way contains no earmarks, let me explain
briefly why this energy and water legislation is so near and dear to
the people I represent in the 18th Congressional District of Texas.
In the past 2 years, Houston, the center of my district, has
experienced some of the most devastating acts of nature in its history.

[[Page H6794]]

Six years ago this month, in June 2001, Tropical Storm Allison hit
Southeast Texas. Until Hurricane Katrina, this storm would become the
costliest tropical storm in U.S. history. Flash flooding initiated
quite rapidly during Houston's rush hour late Friday afternoon and on
into the evening hours. Widespread street flooding was the initial
threat, but the high rainfall amounts forced almost all the major
Houston area bayou systems into severe flooding, with some to record
levels. All major freeways in the Houston area were severely flooded at
at least one location during this event. During this single event
alone, rainfall in Harris County ranged from just 2 inches in the
extreme west to in excess of 20 inches over Green's Bayou in the east.
Countywide, the average rainfall was 8 inches with over two-thirds of
the county receiving over 10 inches.

The total damage across Southeast Texas approached $5 billion ($4.88
billion in Harris County alone). Twenty-two deaths were caused by
Allison, with each of these fatalities occurred in Harris County. At
this time, thunderstorms began to train and merge across the Houston
metro area, and the system evolved into a powerful complex right over
the most populated portion of our CWA that evening. This complex
progressed south and east into the early morning hours of Saturday,
June 9. Very heavy rainfall was observed for up to 10 hours in some
locations, and rainfall rates of 4 inches or more per hour were
observed throughout the night. A station in northeast Houston recorded
over 26 inches of rain in almost 10 hours.
In response, the Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project was
launched. TSARP is a joint study effort by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, FEMA, and the Harris County Flood Control District,
the District. The purpose of the TSARP project is to develop technical
products that will assist the local community in recovery from the
devastating flooding, and provide the community with a greater
understanding of flooding and flood risks. The end product of the study
is new Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
TSARP mission statement is: To assist residents of Harris County in
recovery from Tropical Storm Allison and minimize damages from future
floods by investigating the flood event and by developing current,
accurate, and timely flood hazard information.
TSARP used state-of-the-art technology. TSARP has yielded many
products that will help us better understand our flood risk. These
products will assist citizens in making important decisions, and will
assist public agencies in infrastructure planning. The hoped for end
result of TSARP is a more informed and disaster resistant community and
one that is better prepared.
Purchasing flood insurance before June 18 allowed people to
``grandfather'' their existing floodplain status and pay lower premiums
for flood insurance. Once the maps became official on June 18,
residents and business owners whose properties are categorized in
higher-risk flood zones on the new maps may pay higher rates.
According to FEMA, a ``Regulatory Floodway'' means the channel of a
river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be
reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively
increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height.
Communities must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that
there are no increases in upstream flood elevations. For streams and
other watercourses where FEMA has provided Base Flood Elevations, BFEs,
but no floodway has been designated, the community must review
floodplain development on a case-by-case basis to ensure that increases
in water surface elevations do not occur, or identify the need to adopt
a floodway if adequate information is available.
FEMA regulations say ``Communities must regulate development in these
floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood
elevations.'' The City of Houston interprets that as no development
within the floodway. This is not necessarily correct. Construction can
take place but it cannot obstruct the water. Elevating the structure
gets the same effect but the city denies this as they said (debris may
collect under the structure). They will only allow a remodeling permit
if the improvements do not exceed 50 percent of the structures value.
There is one neighborhood along White Oak Bayou that is greatly
affected. The homes are of higher value than most of the district.
Alternatives to resolve their issue includes widening the bayou or
diverting floodwater.
The Harris County Flood District is now investigating these
alternatives. Otherwise, the only solution would be a change in the
city's ordinance allowing construction in the floodway.
I am looking forward to working with colleagues on the Energy and
Water Appropriations Subcommittee to explore ways and means of
resolving this problem so that Houstonians will not be forced out of
their homes and unable to afford flood insurance.
Mr. Chairman, let me provide this partial listing of some of the many
good provisions in this legislation. First, H.R. 2641 will improve U.S.
waterways and flood protection by increasing funding for the Army Corps
of Engineers by $713.4 million above the President's request to address
a $1 billion backlog of operations and needed maintenance. This backlog
needs to be addressed to sustain the coastal and inland navigation
infrastructure critical to the U.S. economy, and the gaps in flood
protection highlighted in Hurricane Katrina.
Second, the legislation will help reduce dependence on foreign oil
and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy and energy
efficiency programs are funded at $1.9 billion--a 50 percent increase
in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. This is in addition
to the additional $300 million added in the FY 2007 joint resolution.
In contrast, the President's FY 2008 request for renewable energy and
energy efficiency research is the same as it was in 2001 in real terms.
Funding for research and development of alternative fuels such as
corn based and cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel is increased by 40
percent above the President's request. Solar Energy demonstration
projects receive a 34 percent increase above the President's request.
There is also $22 million to research new ways of generating power from
water flow, and $44.3 million for geothermal energy, neither of which
were funded in the President's request. (This is on top of the $95
million for upgrades to existing hydropower dams funded under the Army
Corps.)
I could go on and on. This thoughtful legislation provides funding to
invest in new vehicle technology; energy efficient buildings;
weatherization; carbon capture and sequestration; and climate change
science. And it cuts wasteful spending as well.
For example, H.R. 2641 directs the Energy Department to develop a
concrete plan to improve its contract management. The Energy Department
has been on the GAO list of programs that are at high-risk for waste,
fraud, abuse and mismanagement for seventeen years in a row.
The bill also cuts Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, funding
by $285 million below the President's request and $47.5 million below
2007 for this initiative to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and burn long-
lived radioactive materials. There are concerns that this project is
unsafe, will cost tens of billions of dollars, and could make it far
easier for terrorists to obtain plutonium to make nuclear weapons.
The bill also secures substantial savings by cutting wasteful and
unnecessary nuclear weapons programs by $5.9 billion, $632 million
below the President's request and $396 million below 2007. It cuts to
37 specific weapons program accounts, including the Reliable
Replacement Warhead program. The existing stockpile will continue to
provide the Nation's nuclear deterrent for the next two decades, and
certainly until the President develops a strategic nuclear weapons plan
to transform the nuclear weapons complex away from its expensive Cold
War configuration to a more affordable, sustainable structure.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2641 and urge my colleagues to
join me. I thank Chairman Visclosky for his fine work in bringing this
exceptional legislation to the House floor where it should receive an
overwhelmingly favorable vote.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Altmire) having assumed the chair, Mr. Andrews, 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.

____________________