[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9299-9303]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5427, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a 
privileged report (Rept. No. 109-479) on the resolution (H. Res. 832) 
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5427) making 
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, which was referred 
to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 832 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 832

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5427) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2007, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived except for section 102. During consideration of the 
     bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises 
     and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
     that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider 
the resolution?
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the House agreed to consider the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 832 is an open rule providing 1 hour of 
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 
5427, The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2007. 
Under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by 
paragraph.
  House Resolution 832 waives points of order against provisions of the 
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting 
unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an 
appropriations bill except as specified in the resolution. The rule 
authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who 
have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  The House Rules Committee reported by voice vote an open rule for 
consideration of H.R. 5427, The Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act of 2007. The underlying bill provides over $30 
billion to the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, the 
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation and several 
independent agencies.
  The underlying bill provides nearly $5 billion to support vigorous 
civil works programs that focus limited resources on completing high-
priority projects. The Department of Energy constitutes the bulk of the 
bill with funding of over $24.3 billion. Included in the Department of 
Energy's budget is over $4 billion for the American Competitiveness 
Initiative to strengthen basic research by increasing funding for the 
Department of Energy's Office of Science.
  The bill also supports the Advanced Energy Initiative by increasing 
money for a variety of clean energy technologies including biomass, 
hydrogen, solar, wind, and clean coal.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill also includes funding important many projects 
in my central Washington district. After getting the Bureau of 
Reclamation engaged in funding solutions for the depletion of the 
Odessa Subaquifer 2 years ago, I am pleased that this bill continues 
the effort to ensure the Federal Government keeps its commitment to the 
Columbia Basin farmers at risk of losing their water supply.
  For the fifth straight year, I am pleased that the funds are provided 
to keep the study of additional water storage in the Yakima River Basin 
moving forward towards completion. 2007 is a critical year for this 
study and this gives the Bureau the funds needed to keep it on schedule 
to get the study done by 2008.
  Having authored the law that created the study, I am dedicated to 
ensuring it stays on course. No storage has been built in this Yakima 
River Basin since the mid-1930s. And after several serious droughts in 
the last 5 years, it is vital that this study provide answers on more 
storage.
  Over $24 million is provided for 2007 to ensure 1,000 Federal lab 
scientists and workers continue their important work at the Pacific 
Northwest National Lab. The funds are needed to

[[Page 9300]]

transition the lab personnel into new lab buildings. Some lab buildings 
dating back to the mid-1940s are slated for demolition and cleanup due 
to radioactive contamination of the structures, soil and ground water. 
With coordination and planning, this transition can possibly be 
accomplished in a manner that could save the taxpayers over $100 
million.
  Within the Department of Energy, the Office of Environmental 
Management is responsible for the cleanup at the Nation's nuclear 
sites. The largest and most contaminated of these sites is Hanford in 
my district. This bill provides needed Hanford cleanup funds for the 
River Corridor Closure project, the K Basins and other projects managed 
by the Richland Operations Office. An increase of $20 million is 
provided for ground water contamination cleanup and technology 
development.
  At Hanford's Office of River Protection, $20 million is restored to 
the tank farm budget for the bulk vit demonstration project. This 
funding is necessary for DOE to confirm alternative treatments for 
millions of gallons of hazardous and radioactive tank waste.
  Mr. Speaker, the largest component of Hanford's budget is the waste 
treatment plant. This project is critical to the Federal Government's 
obligation to uphold its legal cleanup commitments to the State of 
Washington. For well over a year this project has been undergoing 
extensive review by the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of 
Engineers, and GAO.
  In addition, an independent group of the Nation's best and brightest 
nuclear and construction experts have been looking into the project's 
technical issues and estimates of the projects costs and schedule. 
These reviews are providing both recommendations and validations that 
will assist the Department of Energy in setting a path forward for this 
project.
  It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, and expectation that DOE will provide a 
detailed plan for the waste treatment plant before Congress writes a 
final conference report on the energy and water appropriations act for 
this year. A final path forward from DOE is critical for making 
decisions on this project for next year and for the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress enough the importance of Congress 
getting this information from DOE in a timely manner.
  I also want to thank the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member 
for the time and attention they have dedicated to the waste treatment 
facility, specifically into preparing a bill that enjoyed strong 
bipartisan support in the subcommittee and full Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 832 is an open rule that gives all 
Members a chance to express their views on how our Nation should be 
prioritizing its spending. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me this time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we consider the rule governing debate for the 
energy and water appropriations bill. The issues of energy and water 
are always important, but this year these issues are front and center 
of our national dialogue.
  Over the past 9 months, the American people have seen the direct 
impact of water infrastructure on their day-to-day lives, from 
Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans and the gulf coast to 
the worst flooding the New England States have experienced in 70 years, 
and just this week NOAA announced the upcoming hurricane season will 
bring an increase in strong storms reaching land, category 3 and above.
  In our communities, in our States, and every region of our country we 
are seeing the importance of flood protection. But we are also 
witnessing the growing strain on our already fragile water 
infrastructure. Yet even with this added pressure, our Nation's civil 
works programs do not see a corresponding increase in funding. These 
projects provide critical protections and we need to make investing in 
them a priority.
  On repeated occasions you have heard me discuss the critical need to 
improve flood protection in my hometown of Sacramento.

                              {time}  2130

  In terms of lives and property, I recognize what is at stake. 
Sacramento has the dubious distinction of being the most at-risk river 
city in the Nation. I certainly understand the heightened concern that 
arrives with each rainfall. This year, our region has experienced an 
especially wet winter and wet spring. Each year we delay making these 
necessary investments is one more year of wondering what Mother Nature 
will bring.
  Members of the committee attempted to make the most with its limited 
resources. They did improve on the President's budget. However, as 
Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Obey and Energy and Water 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Visclosky rightly pointed out, we still 
need an additional $250 million to protect vulnerable areas from 
flooding.
  With these funds, the Army Corps of Engineers could speed up 
construction on a number of flood protection projects across the 
country. Additionally, they would be able to provide some support to 
the operation and maintenance of completed projects, as well as restore 
the Corps' research and development program.
  As a Nation, we are at a crossroads. We can continue in a defensive 
position, responding to Mother Nature's whims as in New Orleans and 
recent storms in the northeast, or we can take the offensive, working 
to strengthen and reinforce our Nation's water infrastructure.
  In my view, we must seek out opportunities like this to be proactive 
and not reactive, as Congress is beginning to do in science and 
investing in renewable energy sources.
  I was pleased that the committee increased funding from last year's 
level for the Department of Energy's Office of Science. This will fund 
basic energy research, nuclear physics, as well as biological and 
environmental sciences. A 15 percent increase is a good start, but if 
we truly want to reverse the trend of the past few years, we need to 
make a greater investment in science and research and development.
  I was home in Sacramento this past weekend and everyone was talking 
about rising gas and energy prices. The net effect for working families 
is perhaps a shorter vacation and perhaps not eating out at a 
restaurant. Escalating energy prices threaten not only the quality of 
life and pocketbook of every American but the very stability of our 
national economy.
  We must do more as a Nation to develop energy alternatives. I believe 
that America must modernize its energy policy to decrease this Nation's 
dependence on foreign sources of oil and preserve the environment. To 
accomplish this, Congress must develop a strategic and forward-looking 
energy plan that places a high priority on new research into renewable 
fuels and greater energy efficiency.
  Unfortunately, the programs this bill cut are the exact programs 
necessary to develop a national renewable energy portfolio for the 21st 
century. There are drastic reductions in funding for wind, solar and 
geothermal programs, some of the programs that must be grown if we are 
ever going to curb our reliance on oil. I am concerned that we are 
missing an opportunity to expand our energy alternatives.
  As much as this Energy and Water Appropriations bill is about funding 
current needs, it is also about investing in the future. While I think 
the committee tried to the best of their abilities to do this, in the 
end, the tight funding constraints limited their ability to strike the 
necessary balance.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my colleague on the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support of 
the rule

[[Page 9301]]

for the Energy and Water Appropriations Act.
  I wish to commend Chairman Hobson and the subcommittee for crafting 
in a very bipartisan way an excellent bill. This bill does contain 
funding for water and resource-related projects in my district and my 
State, and I think that it is very wise of them, but it also deals with 
one specific issue I wish to address this evening.
  Chairman Hobson has recognized in this bill the importance of having 
a very strong nuclear power program in the United States. As Americans 
continue to face the increasing costs of energy, nuclear power is an 
important part of our overall energy policy. Chairman Hobson has 
craftily connected the concept of interim storage with reprocessing of 
fuel rods, recognizing that spent fuel rods really are not spent at 
all. The overwhelming majority of the rod is still fuel that is 
available, and through reprocessing of the spent fuel rods, we can not 
only create greater energy, but we will significantly reduce the 
problem of a waste stream.
  During last year's debate, I engaged Chairman Hobson on the floor in 
a colloquy on this issue. He said at that time: ``I do not see any 
reason for the Secretary to consider making a private site, or a site 
on tribal land, into a DOE site for interim storage. My intent is for 
the Secretary to evaluate storage options at existing DOE sites.''
  I appreciate very much that his subcommittee has taken these words to 
heart and has crafted in this bill a process which ensures that the 
interim storage of nuclear waste will be done in conjunction with 
willing partners.
  Specifically in this bill, there are some additional criteria for 
interim storage in the report language. It talks about the department, 
and it says they will ``explore consolidation of spent fuel within 
States with high volumes of spent fuel. The Department should conduct a 
voluntary, competitive process to select interim storage sites.''
  The key word here obviously is the word ``voluntary.'' Chairman 
Hobson added this important phrase and clearly understands that it is 
far wiser and better to voluntarily work with States than to try to 
impose mandates on States. That not only protects the rights and 
positions of States in our Federal State, but it is clearly a wiser 
policy of choice.
  This bill reinforces the statements and the commitments that the 
chairman has made on this issue, this year, last year and repeatedly in 
other venues, and I appreciate him doing that. State and local 
officials in my State, military in my State, environmental groups and 
citizens in my State are encouraged with these particular words.
  Once again, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman 
Hobson and the entire subcommittee, both sides of the aisle, for 
protecting what I consider to be in an important way the citizens of my 
State and ensuring that State and local interests are paramount in this 
particular process. I think you have done a fine job, and I am proud to 
speak in favor of this particular bill and especially the rule which 
will put it before us.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding and 
her kind remarks and also at the outset would congratulate the 
gentleman from Washington for his leadership and dogged determination 
to follow through on very complicated issues relative to Hanford, not 
only on behalf of the constituents he represents in his district or the 
State of Washington, but to make sure that we in a timely fashion have 
a solution to a national problem, and I do respect the gentleman's 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Water bill that will be before us 
tomorrow is an excellent bill, and Mr. Hobson and the members of the 
subcommittee have done an exceptional job on it. I will be strongly 
supporting the bill. However, I rise now because it simply does not do 
enough, given the restricted allocation that the subcommittee had to 
deal with.
  That is why I am asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question 
on the rule so that I may offer an amendment to the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriation bill. Last week, in the full Appropriations 
Committee, Mr. Obey proposed an alternative set of 302(b) allocations 
that include $1 billion more for the Energy and Water bill. My 
amendment would propose that the same increase to this bill be given 
and show how the Democratic Members of the House would allocate the 
additional spending.
  Over 25 years ago, during the Carter administration, the country 
faced a major energy crisis. The Congress responded aggressively. 
Today, I believe our response is a faint shadow of what had been done 
previously. Today, our spending levels for research and development and 
demonstration for fossil fuels, renewable energy sources and 
conservation are about one-quarter of what they were then. The 
amendment would provide an additional $750 million across these areas.
  Some examples of this increased investment in energy innovation are:
  A doubling of funding for biofuels and biorefineries so that 
researchers can pursue the full range of biomass technologies and 
develop new ones;
  Provide the Clean Coal Program with enough funding so that they can 
issue the next major solicitation of innovative proposals for making 
better use of this abundant domestic energy source;
  To restore funding for petroleum, natural gas and geothermal 
technology programs for which the administration and the bill provide 
virtually no funds;
  Increase support for developing the full range of conservation 
technologies;
  Weatherization for an additional 30,000 homes in the year 2007, next 
year, providing immediate energy savings;
  The establishment of a DARPA-like program in DOE for advanced energy 
research projects to stimulate innovation that can change the paradigms 
for how we obtain and use energy, much as DARPA investments in 
networking help create the Internet.
  Relative to our water infrastructure, Hurricane Katrina was a wake-up 
call, and while we are providing much funding for this stricken area, 
flood protection is needed in many other areas of our country. The 
amendment would also provide $250 million more to accelerate needed 
improvements to flood control measures around the country. It would 
also increase operation and maintenance funding for two regions and 
partially restore the cuts to the R and D program for the Army Corps of 
Engineers.
  Our country needs this $1 billion increase to this year's investments 
to ensure our future safety and prosperity. Given that there will be 
additional needs in the future, I would not borrow the money for these 
investments from our children and grandchildren. So they must be paid 
for now, and to do that, the amendment would provide that those making 
in excess of $1 million in 2007 give up 2.42 percent of the tax cuts 
provided to them since 2000. I think the country will miss these 
investments in our common good more than the most prosperous among us 
will miss two-tenths of their ample income.
  Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that my proposal would have been made in 
order under the rule. I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question so that this amendment can be debated and voted upon by the 
full House.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I, first of all, want to thank the ranking member for 
his kind words, and I also want to thank him and the chairman of the 
subcommittee a little broader because they have taken a great deal of 
interest in the Hanford project. Both of them have been out there at 
least once in the past several years, and other Members of the 
subcommittee have visited that, and I want to bring that to the House's 
attention because the one common denominator I hear when people go out 
and visit the Hanford site is, I had no idea it was that huge and that 
complex. I think that understanding helps us move forward.
  But I do want to reiterate and I do hope the Department of Energy 
does

[[Page 9302]]

come forward with their path before we finally get the final conference 
report. I think that it is important.
  Having said that, on the Rules Committee, we did not make the 
gentleman's amendment in order because it calls for raising taxes, and 
that is a province of the Ways and Means Committee, and obviously, they 
do want to keep that jurisdiction. We did not provide the waiver, and 
therefore, that amendment was not made in order.
  I also mention, too, the amendment was offered during the markup in 
the full Appropriations Committee, and it was defeated by the 
Appropriations Committee.
  So I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, but I just wanted to make 
those observations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make some comments also 
that I appreciate Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for 
working with me on my project in Sacramento. That is much appreciated.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I think in general, within the 
spectacularly inadequate allocation provided the subcommittee, that Mr. 
Hobson and Mr. Visclosky have done a very credible job on this bill, 
and I especially appreciate the way Mr. Hobson has approached this bill 
on a bipartisan basis.
  Having said that, I would hope that Members would vote against the 
previous question on the rule. As Mr. Visclosky pointed out, for the 25 
years since Jimmy Carter left office, this country has been in a 
listless drift as far as energy policy is concerned. Energy 
conservation, energy research programs, have been funded at woefully 
low levels in comparison to where they were during the high point of 
Jimmy Carter's presidency.
  The problem is that, after Carter left office, his successors, 
especially Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, systematically shrank those budgets 
in real terms, and so today, we are paying the price in terms of scarce 
energy and high energy prices.
  We have some choices to make. The Congress has already determined 
this year, the majority party has, that it is important this year to 
provide $40 billion in supersized tax cuts to people who make over $1 
million a year.

                              {time}  2145

  In contrast, Mr. Visclosky would offer an amendment which would scale 
back the size of those tax cuts by 2\1/2\ percent and use that money 
instead to make greater investments totaling $1 billion more than the 
bill contains for flood control projects and especially for energy 
conservation and energy development programs.
  If we had done that over the past 25 years, if we had simply kept up 
with what Jimmy Carter had asked us to do while he was President, we 
would be in a far more secure place as a Nation tonight and we would 
have a far more stable pricing system for energy, and we would be much 
further along the way toward protecting Mother Earth from the ravages 
of global warming.
  So I would hope that the House would vote against the previous 
question so that we would have an opportunity to resurrect the 
Visclosky amendment. I do believe that it is important to ask the 
question: What is more valuable to the country's future, stronger 
levees in our communities, stronger flood control projects, an energy 
policy that puts us ahead of the curve rather than at the mercy of 
OPEC, or an even easier Easy Street for the most well-off people in 
this society?
  I think the choice is obvious.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from 
California I have no more requests for time, so I will reserve my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I rise to 
oppose this rule, and I must express my very deep concern with the 
underlying bill.
  Despite the very best efforts of many of my colleagues, this bill 
remains a broken promise on the most critical issues that we confront, 
specifically renewable energy. The gentleman from Indiana is absolutely 
correct, we need to do much more than we are doing in this bill on 
renewable energy.
  Let me tell you why this is so critical, Mr. Speaker. This year, the 
Department of Defense will spend $10 billion on its basic energy bill. 
Of that $10 billion, $4.7 billion will buy one thing: fuel for the Air 
Force planes. That $4.7 billion is about what we are going to spend for 
the National Cancer Institute.
  We need renewable energies, Mr. Speaker, not just for our 
environment, not just to bring gas prices down, but as a matter of 
national security. What could be more dysfunctional than having to 
borrow money from China in order to buy oil from our Persian Gulf 
adversaries in order to fuel airplanes to protect us from China and our 
Persian Gulf adversaries?
  On renewable energies, this bill, as it is currently drafted, falls 
short. Last July, we passed an energy bill, and many of us printed 
press releases patting ourselves on the back for this sweeping new 
investment in renewable energy. Those press releases promised $3.3 
billion would be spent on renewable energies this year alone, $3.3 
billion authorized for research, development, and deployment of 
renewable energy. But when it comes time to actually sign the check, 
the check doesn't say $3.3 billion, it says $1.3 billion. That is $2 
billion short.
  This is like No Child Left Behind all over again. You promise to pay 
high, you actually pay low. In this case, it is not Leave No Child 
Behind; pit is Leave No Barrel of Oil Behind.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that the argument can be made, and I 
respect the argument, that many renewable technologies did receive 
increases over last year. Many specific accounts for renewable energy, 
research and development did receive increases over last year's levels. 
But only in Washington can a $2 billion shortfall be called an 
increase.
  Try that logic with your utility company. When the bill comes, try 
saying I know I was going to pay $100, $150, but what I really meant to 
say was, I am giving you $15. No utility company would let you get away 
with it, and the Congress shouldn't allow that to be gotten away with.
  The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is the bottom line. And if we are truly 
serious about ending our dependence on foreign oil and strengthening 
our military, we would not be shortchanging this bill. I hope that the 
gentleman's efforts prevail. I hope that this Congress will have an 
opportunity to put our money where our mouths are when it comes to 
renewable energy, not just as an environmental issue, not just to get 
gas prices down, but to make sure our military has the capabilities to 
defeat our enemies around the world.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule 
so that we can consider the Visclosky amendment that was rejected in 
the Rules Committee tonight on a straight party-line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the Visclosky amendment would provide $250 
million for a number of ongoing flood projects that are not funded in 
the bill. It also adds $750 million for research into alternative 
sources of energy, such as coal, ethanol, and biodiesel, that would 
reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. The spending 
increase in the Visclosky amendment is offset by reducing by 2.4 
percent the tax cut received by people earning more than $1 million a 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment deals with two urgent national 
priorities. It puts our money where our mouth is when we say our 
country needs to diversify our energy supply, increase energy 
efficiency, and reduce our addiction to foreign oil. With the hurricane

[[Page 9303]]

season approaching, it puts more resources into the major flood control 
projects that would protect our property and our lives.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important for Members to know that a ``no'' vote 
will not prevent us from considering the energy and water appropriation 
bill under an open rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote 
on the Visclosky amendment.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the resolution.
  This is a fair rule. It is an open rule and allows Members to come 
down to the floor and prioritize and reprioritize the spending under 
the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res.__, Rule for H.R. 5427 the Energy & Water 
                       Appropriations for FY 2007

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if offered by Representative Visclosky of 
     Indiana or a designee. The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for 
     a division of the question in the committee of the whole or 
     in the House.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

Amendment to Energy and Water Appropriations bill, 2007 Offered by Mr. 
                          Visclosky of Indiana

       Page 2, line 20, strike ``$128,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$132,000,000''.
       Page 3, line 12, strike ``$1,947,171,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,175,171,000''.
       Page 6, line 10, strike ``$2,195,471,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,213,471,000''.
       Page 6, line 14, strike ``$297,043,000'' and insert 
     ``$306,043,000''.
       Page 7, line 3, strike ``$141,113,000'' and insert 
     ``$150,113,000''.
       Page 21, line 5, strike ``$2,025,527,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,525,527,000''.
       Page 21, line 6, before the period, insert the following: 
     ``, of which not less than $150,000,000 shall be for funding 
     new advanced energy research''.
       Page 22, line 1, strike ``$558,204,000'' and insert 
     ``$808,204,000''.
       Page 22, line 2, strike ``$54,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$80,000,000''.
       Page 22, line 13, strike ``$36,400,000'' and insert 
     ``$200,400,000''.
       At the end of title V, insert the following:
       Sec. __. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of 
     $1,000,000, for the calendar year beginning in 2007, the 
     amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of Public 
     Law 107-16, Public Law 108-27 and Public Law 108-311 shall be 
     reduced by 2.42 percent.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
for the previous question, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________