[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9460-9484]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 832 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. 5427.

                              {time}  1539


                     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. 5427) making appropriations for energy and water 
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Gutknecht in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, all 
time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no amendment to the bill 
may be offered except those specified in the previous order of the 
House of today, which is at the desk.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5427

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2007, for energy and water development 
     and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                       CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       The following appropriations shall be expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of 
     the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the 
     Department of the Army pertaining to rivers and harbors, 
     flood control, shore protection and storm damage reduction, 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related purposes.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Visclosky

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Visclosky:
       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. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition and would 
explain the amendment to the membership. As I indicated in my opening 
remarks, I fully support the committee's bill. The chairman and members 
of the committee have done an excellent job. But we do not have the 
sufficient resources represented in the legislation.
  My amendment would provide $1 billion additional, $750 million of 
which would be dedicated to programs at the Department of Energy, $250 
million of which would be dedicated to water projects throughout the 
United States of America.
  As I mentioned in my statement to the full committee when this 
legislation was being considered, when John Kennedy was President of 
the United States, almost 70 cents out of every $1 spent by the Federal 
Government was appropriated by the Appropriations Committee, and we 
made an investment in our economic infrastructure. We made an 
investment in our society. We made an investment in our future.
  Today, less than 30 cents out of every $1 spent by the Federal 
Government is appropriated dollars, and we are failing in that 
investment responsibility.
  The amendment I would offer would enhance the quality of the bill 
before us by doubling funding for biofuels and biorefineries. It would 
provide for clean coal programs. It would restore funding for 
petroleum, natural gas, geothermal technology programs, increase 
support for developing a full range of conservation technologies and 
help weatherize an additional 30,000 homes next year to provide 
immediate energy savings. We would also again provide $250 million to 
accelerate needed programs for flood control measures and also 
operation and maintenance.
  I also believe that, unfairly, we have borrowed too much too long in 
this country and have burdened the next generation with the cost of 
that borrowing, and therefore, the amendment would be paid for by 
reducing the tax cut provided to the wealthiest in society in 2001, so 
that the amendment is also paid for.
  I do think we need to make an investment in this society, and my 
amendment would do so. I would hope that the point of order is not 
sustained.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes a change to existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The 
amendment does change the existing law.
  Therefore, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member care to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair finds that the amendment changes the application of 
existing law by varying a rate of taxation. The amendment therefore 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.

[[Page 9461]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday, we spent an inordinate amount of time 
focusing on a few relatively tiny earmarks on the agriculture 
appropriations bill and spent almost no time discussing whether or not 
that bill was adequate in responding to the needs of rural America. 
Today, we are going to be debating the shape and nature of some of 
these individual programs, but we are likely, except for the Visclosky 
amendment, never likely to really discuss the adequacy of this bill in 
terms of the challenges that lie before the Nation. So I want to take 
just a moment to express my regret that the majority felt it necessary 
to strike the Visclosky amendment on a point of order.
  We have been drifting aimlessly on energy policy ever since President 
Carter left office, as Mr. Visclosky pointed out last night. In a 
variety of program categories, when we are discussing (energy and 
conservation research, renewable research, fossil fuel research and 
energy conservation) we are funding these efforts at levels that range 
from one-quarter to one-half in real-dollar terms of what we were 
funding those same efforts when Jimmy Carter was President.

                              {time}  1545

  As a result of that two decade or more drift, we as a society today 
are extremely vulnerable to higher energy prices, and especially higher 
gas prices. The Visclosky Amendment was an attempt to, at least for a 
few moments on the debate on this bill, focus on the adequacy of our 
effort.
  No one faults the gentleman from Ohio for the job he has done in 
allocating what resources are available. But the fact is, if we are 
really serious, if we were really serious about meeting the flood 
control needs of the country, if we were really serious about meeting 
the energy conservation and energy development needs of this country, 
we would be putting those items first.
  We would be putting an extra billion dollars into those items, rather 
than providing super-sized tax cuts to people who make $1 million or 
more a year. The Visclosky Amendment would have simply asked that we 
cut back by $2,000 per taxpayer the size of the tax cuts going to 
people who make $1 million or more a year.
  The tax bill that this House passed 2 weeks ago provided over $40 
billion in additional tax cuts to people who make over $1 million a 
year. We would have simply taken $1 billion of that $40 billion and 
transferred it from tax cuts for the most privileged among us to 
investments in flood control, to investments in the kind of energy 
promises that Mr. Visclosky was talking about today.
  It is regrettable that this House does not see fit to put first 
things first by passing an amendment such as the Visclosky Amendment. I 
simply wanted to take the time to express that thought.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                             Investigations

       For expenses necessary for the collection and study of 
     basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood 
     control, shore protection and storm damage reduction, aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, and related projects, restudy of 
     authorized projects, miscellaneous investigations, and, when 
     authorized by law, surveys and detailed studies and plans and 
     specifications of projects prior to construction, 
     $128,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That, except as provided in section 101 of this Act, the 
     amounts made available under this paragraph shall be expended 
     in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the 
     report accompanying this Act.

                              Construction


                         (including rescission)

       For expenses necessary for the construction of river and 
     harbor, flood control, shore protection and storm damage 
     reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related 
     projects authorized by law; for conducting detailed studies, 
     and plans and specifications, of such projects (including 
     those involving participation by States, local governments, 
     or private groups) authorized or made eligible for selection 
     by law (but such detailed studies, and plans and 
     specifications, shall not constitute a commitment of the 
     Government to construction); $1,947,171,000, to remain 
     available until expended; of which such sums as are necessary 
     pursuant to Public Law 99-662 shall be derived from the 
     Inland Waterways Trust Fund, to cover one-half of the costs 
     of construction and rehabilitation of inland waterways 
     projects; and of which $8,000,000 shall be exclusively for 
     projects and activities authorized under section 107 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1960; and of which $2,000,000 shall 
     be exclusively for projects and activities authorized under 
     section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962; and of which 
     $29,933,000 shall be exclusively available for projects and 
     activities authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1948; and of which $15,000,000 shall be exclusively 
     for projects and activities authorized under section 14 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1946; and of which $25,000,000 shall 
     be exclusively for projects and activities authorized under 
     section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986; 
     and of which $25,000,000 shall be exclusively for projects 
     and activities authorized under section 206 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996; and of which $2,500,000 
     shall be for projects and activities authorized under section 
     111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968; and of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be for projects and activities authorized 
     under section 204 of the Water Resources Act of 1992: 
     Provided, That $35,000,000 shall be available for projects 
     and activities authorized under 16 U.S.C. 410-r-8: Provided 
     further, That, of the funds provided under the heading 
     ``Construction'' in title I of Public Law 109-103, 
     $56,046,000 is rescinded, to be derived from the unobligated 
     balances of the amounts made available for the following 
     projects in Louisiana: Grand Isle and Vicinity, Lake 
     Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Larose to Golden Meadow, New 
     Orleans to Venice, Southeast Louisiana, and West Bank and 
     Vicinity: Provided further, That, except as provided in 
     section 101 of this Act, the amounts made available under 
     this paragraph shall be expended in accordance with the terms 
     and conditions specified in the report accompanying this Act.

                   Mississippi River and Tributaries

       For expenses necessary for the program for the Mississippi 
     River alluvial valley below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as 
     authorized by law, $290,607,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which such sums as are necessary to cover the 
     Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for inland 
     harbors shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
     Fund: Provided, That, except as provided in section 101 of 
     this Act, the amounts made available under this paragraph 
     shall be expended in accordance with the terms and conditions 
     specified in the report accompanying this Act.

                       Operation and Maintenance

       For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and 
     care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage 
     reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related 
     projects authorized by law, including the construction of 
     facilities, projects, or features (including islands and 
     wetlands) to use materials dredged during Federal navigation 
     maintenance activities; the mitigation of impacts on 
     shorelines resulting from Federal navigation operation and 
     maintenance activities; the benefit of federally listed 
     species to address the effects of any civil works project 
     under the jurisdiction of the Corps on any such species on 
     project land within the watershed or operational reach of the 
     project; providing security for infrastructure owned and 
     operated by, or on behalf of, the Corps, including 
     administrative buildings and facilities, and laboratories; 
     the maintenance of harbor channels provided by a State, 
     municipality, or other public agency that serve essential 
     navigation needs of general commerce, where authorized by 
     law; and surveys and charting of northern and northwestern 
     lakes and connecting waters, clearing and straightening 
     channels, and removal of obstructions to navigation, 
     $2,195,471,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $45,078,000 shall be for projects and activities in Region 1 
     New England; of which $143,250,000 shall be for projects and 
     activities in Region 2 Mid Atlantic; of which $297,043,000 
     shall be for projects and activities in Region 3 South 
     Atlantic Gulf; of which $101,407,000 shall be for projects 
     and activities in Region 4 Great Lakes; of which $252,886,000 
     shall be for projects and activities in Region 5 Ohio; of 
     which $21,301,000 shall be for projects and activities in 
     Region 6 Tennessee; of which $233,803,000 shall be for 
     projects and activities in Region 7 Upper Mississippi; of 
     which $147,021,000 shall be for projects and activities in 
     Region 8 Lower Mississippi; of which $2,999,000 shall be for 
     projects and activities in Region 9 Souris-Red-Rainy; of 
     which $151,180,000 shall be for projects and activities in 
     Region 10 Missouri; of which $178,084,000 shall be for 
     projects and activities in Region 11 Arkansas-White-Red; of 
     which $141,113,000 shall be for projects and activities in 
     Region 12 Texas-Gulf; of which $10,209,000 shall be for 
     projects and activities in Region 13 Rio Grande; of which 
     $722,000 shall be for projects and activities in Region 14 
     Upper Colorado; of which $3,327,000 shall be for projects and 
     activities in Region 15 Lower Colorado; of which $761,000 
     shall be for projects and activities in Region 16 Great 
     Basin; of which $242,593,000 shall be for projects and 
     activities in Region 17 Pacific Northwest; of which 
     $102,461,000 shall be for projects and activities in Region 
     18 California; of which $22,204,000 shall be for

[[Page 9462]]

     projects and activities in Region 19 Alaska; of which 
     $1,995,000 shall be for projects and activities in Region 20 
     Hawaii; of which $4,000,000 shall be for projects and 
     activities in Region 21 Caribbean; of which such sums as are 
     necessary to cover the Federal share of eligible operations 
     and maintenance shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance 
     Trust Fund of which such sums as become available from the 
     special account for the Corps established by the Land and 
     Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     6a(i)), shall be used for resource protection, research, 
     interpretation, and maintenance activities related to 
     resource protection in areas operated by the Corps at which 
     outdoor recreation is available; and of which such sums as 
     become available under section 217 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, shall be used to 
     cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the dredged 
     material disposal facilities for which fees have been 
     collected: Provided, That, except as provided in section 101 
     of this Act, the amounts made available under this paragraph 
     shall be expended in accordance with the terms and conditions 
     specified in the report accompanying this Act.

                           Regulatory Program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $173,000,000, to remain available until expended.

            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

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

                 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

       For expenses necessary to prepare for flood, hurricane, and 
     other natural disasters and support emergency operations, 
     repairs, and other activities in response to flood and 
     hurricane emergencies, as authorized by law, $32,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                            General Expenses

       For expenses necessary for general administration and 
     related civil works functions in the headquarters of the 
     United States Army Corps of Engineers, the offices of the 
     Division Engineers, the Humphreys Engineer Center Support 
     Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United 
     States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and the 
     United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center, 
     $142,100,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no part of any other appropriation provided in title I 
     of this Act shall be available to fund the civil works 
     activities of the Office of the Chief of Engineers or the 
     civil works executive direction and management activities of 
     the offices of the Division Engineers: Provided further, 
     That, of the funds provided under this heading, $10,000,000 
     shall be transferred to ``Operation and Maintenance'' upon 
     the expiration of the 30-day period following the date of 
     enactment of this Act if, during such period, the Secretary 
     of the Army has not submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a report summarizing outstanding reprogramming commitments of 
     the Corps of Engineers for fiscal years 2000 through 2006 on 
     a project by project basis.

        Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Assistant 
     Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), as authorized by 10 
     U.S.C. 3016(b)(3), $1,500,000: Provided, That, of the funds 
     provided under this heading, $1,000,000 shall be transferred 
     to ``Operation and Maintenance'' upon the expiration of the 
     30-day period following the date of enactment of this Act if, 
     during such period, the Secretary of the Army has not 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a report summarizing 
     outstanding reprogramming commitments of the Corps of 
     Engineers for fiscal years 2000 through 2006 on a project by 
     project basis.

                        Administrative Provision

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

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       Sec. 101. (a) None of the funds provided in title I of this 
     Act shall be available for obligation or expenditure through 
     a reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted by this Act;
       (4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
       (5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     by more than $2,000,000 or 25 percent, whichever is less; or
       (6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by 
     more than $2,000,000 or 25 percent, whichever is less.
       (b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or 
     activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1948; section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946; 
     section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954; section 107 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1960; section 103 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1962; section 111 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1968; section 1135 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986; section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996; sections 204 and 207 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 or section 933 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986.

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and 
thank the chairman, Mr. Hobson, for providing me this opportunity to 
speak on a matter of great importance to my district.
  The budget recommended by the committee provides for only $90.6 
million for the Defense Environmental Cleanup at Los Alamos National 
Laboratories. While it is important to note that this amount is equal 
to the President's budget request, it is more than $50 million less 
than the amount enacted for this purpose in fiscal year 2006.
  Mr. Chairman, I am gravely concerned that this funding level will 
seriously impede cleanup efforts at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
Less than a year ago, the State of New Mexico, the Department of Energy 
and the University of California signed an historic fence-to-fence 
cleanup order. This year's cut reduces funding to only 30 percent of 
what is called for in this order.
  Not only must this cleanup be undertaken to protect the health of New 
Mexicans, but the order of consent is a legally enforceable document. 
It is my understanding that the DOE will face significant penalties for 
noncompliance to this agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1 week, the Los Alamos National Laboratories will 
enter a new era when the new management team comes into place. I feel 
that we should take advantage of this positive momentum and keep LANL 
moving in the right direction by showing that it is a responsible and 
conscientious neighbor to the residents of New Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, the order of consent was the result of years of 
negotiations; and it provides clear guidance for how to proceed with 
the cleanup. Lack of funding leaves New Mexicans, LANL and potentially 
the DOE in jeopardy.
  I hope that an adequate funding level for the Defense Environmental 
Cleanup account for the Los Alamos National Laboratories is restored in 
conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 102. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     requirements regarding the use of continuing contracts under 
     the authority of section 206 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2331) shall apply only to 
     projects funded under the Operation and Maintenance account 
     and the Operation and Maintenance subaccount of the Flood 
     Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries account.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
102.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, this provision violates clause 2 of rule 
XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on 
an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, section 202 of WRDA 1999 requires the use 
of continuing contracts. When the corps decides to move forward on a 
project, it must use a continuing contract.
  You need multi-year contracting authority. Without it, the corps 
would be in anti-deficiency. This permits the corps to obligate the 
Federal Government in future fiscal years priority appropriations. The 
out-year costs of continuing contracts are not fully budgeted.

[[Page 9463]]

  This is an irresponsible use of continuing contracts; and, frankly, 
something has got to be done. If the authorizers will not do it, then 
the Appropriations Committee will.
  There are instances where continuing contracts make sense, but the 
corps, not the contractor, needs to control the spending rate. It must 
be no more than is available to the project.
  We requested the GAO review the corps' use of this mechanism, and 
early findings are similar to the reprogramming report of last year. 
The corps has made the use of this contract provision the rule rather 
than the exception.
  The corps cannot reliably account for the contracts currently in 
place. As a result, the House report directs the corps to secure the 
services of a national accounting firm to audit and account for all 
existing contracts and contain this clause and the out-year commitments 
required to meet these obligations.
  The problem you have here is that the corps enters into these 
contracts, they don't control what the funding level is, and then they 
take money from another project and put it over there. Then they can't 
fund that one, all because of this provision.
  We have tried to get the committee of authorization to handle this 
matter. They haven't. So what we have to do, and I know you will 
sustain his point of order, but it is not the proper thing to do, then 
we are going to have to go and put it back in the bill, do it for 
another year, because we can't get the authorizers to get into the 
reprogramming, which is affecting the corps and causes increased costs 
to the corps.
  So while I disagree with the gentleman, I understand the 
technicalities of this. But sometimes we are able to work these things 
out with committees so for the good of the country we move forward. 
Apparently, they want to continue this. I have no other way of dealing 
with this than to argue about it. And then I will have to stick it back 
in until we get some responsible response from the corps on this matter 
and save money, I might add.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? Then the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section explicitly supersedes existing law. 
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and this section is stricken from the 
bill.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to enter 
into a colloquy with Mrs. Biggert.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  I know that the chairman shares my interest in protecting the Great 
Lakes from aquatic invasive species like the Asian carp. I appreciate 
his past support for efforts by the Army Corps of Engineers to 
construct, operate and maintain a system of dispersal barriers.
  Located on the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal, the only link between 
the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River ecosystems, these barriers 
are underwater, invisible electric fences that repulse fish.
  As the chairman knows, the corps has encountered some obstacles, both 
in terms of funding and authority, to completing construction of the 
permanent barrier. At the same time, funding for the corps to operate 
the original demonstration barrier is limited.
  It is up to Congress to provide the funding for the corps to complete 
construction and testing of the permanent barrier and to operate and 
maintain the original demonstration barrier while the corps completes 
the construction and testing. If we fail to do so, we will leave the 
corps without any tools to protect the Great Lakes from the Asian carp 
and other invasive species.
  This is why I would ask the chairman to do any and everything 
possible in conference to ensure that the corps has the resources it 
needs to maintain some barrier to the threat of the fast-approaching 
Asian carp and other invasive species.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I share the concerns of my colleague from 
Illinois, especially since I am from Ohio and we have the Great Lakes. 
That is why I commit to revisiting in conference the issue of funding 
for the demonstration barrier in fiscal year 2007.
  If Congress were to appropriate the necessary funds, I believe the 
corps has the authority to operate and maintain the demonstration 
barrier. Continued operation of this demonstration barrier may very 
well be necessary if some outstanding authorization issues are not 
resolved and the corps is unable to complete construction of the 
permanent barrier next year.
  Should those authorization issues be addressed before the conference 
on this bill is complete, I am open to providing the corps with the 
additional resources it needs to complete construction and testing of 
the permanent barrier.
  Mr Chairman, I agree that we need permanent, redundant protection 
against the spread of the aquatic invasive species between the Great 
Lakes and Mississippi River basins. I commit to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois and the rest of our Great Lake colleagues, including my 
ranking member from Indiana, and we will both, I believe, work in 
conference to address the issue of protecting the Great Lakes from 
invasive species like the Asian carp.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his commitment. 
I look forward to working with him and the ranking member to ensure 
that every precaution is taken to protect the Great Lakes from such a 
harmful species as the Asian carp.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I would yield any remaining time I have to 
my ranking member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the Chair rising, and I appreciate his 
concern which he has continually expressed to me on this issue, and 
also I would want to be heard because I absolutely agree with the 
position the gentlewoman has taken.
  Asian carp have been found in the Illinois River, which connects the 
Mississippi River to Lake Michigan. To prevent the carp from entering 
the Great Lakes, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA and State of 
Illinois, the International Joint Commission and others are working 
together and have installed a permanent electric barrier between the 
fish and Lake Michigan.
  Unfortunately, the first barrier or nonpermanent barrier has been 
shut down. I believe we should keep both open and running. However, the 
fix would be legislating on an appropriations bill and would not be 
appropriate at this point.
  Mr. Chairman, I do join the chairman and fully support the 
gentlewoman's intent to solve this problem. I appreciate your bringing 
it again to our attention.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 103. None of the funds made available in title I of 
     this Act may be used to award any continuing contract or to 
     make modifications to any existing continuing contract that 
     commits an amount for a project in excess of the amount 
     appropriated for such project pursuant to this Act: Provided, 
     That the amounts appropriated in this Act may be modified 
     pursuant to the authorities provided in section 101 of this 
     Act or through the application of unobligated balances for 
     such project.
       Sec 104. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     expended by the Secretary of the Army to construct the Port 
     Jersey element of the New York and New Jersey Harbor or to 
     reimburse the local sponsor for the construction of the Port 
     Jersey element until commitments for construction of 
     container handling facilities are obtained from the non-
     Federal sponsor for a second user along the Port Jersey 
     element.
       Sec. 105. (a) None of the funds provided in this Act shall 
     be available for operation and maritime maintenance of the 
     hopper dredge McFarland.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to funds required for 
     the decommissioning of the vessel.
       Sec. 106. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     expended to prevent or limit any reprogramming of funds for a 
     project to be carried out by the Corps of Engineers, based on 
     whether the project was included by the President in the 
     budget transmitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, or is otherwise proposed by the President or 
     considered part of the budget by the Office of Management and 
     Budget.

[[Page 9464]]

       Sec. 107. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to repay the Department of Treasury's Judgment Fund for 
     past judgments against the United States on Civil Works 
     contracts and real estate acquisitions that have been 
     financed by the Judgment Fund.
       Sec. 108. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to implement an A-76 study or similar privatization 
     process for Corps personnel employed to operate or maintain 
     locks and dams.
       Sec. 109. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     further work on the Corps of Engineers proposal to remove a 
     section of the dam for fish passage or to study other 
     alternatives to the trap and haul facility at Elk Creek Dam, 
     Oregon.
       Sec. 110. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to revise the master control plans and master 
     manuals of the Corps of Engineers for the Alabama, Coosa, 
     Tallapoosa River basin in Alabama and Georgia or the 
     Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Flint River Basin in Alabama, 
     Georgia, and Florida.

                              {time}  1600


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia:
       Page 14, strike lines 12 through 17.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, it is with reluctance that I come today because this is 
a matter that we would rather not have to deal with on this floor. It 
relates to the limiting language that was placed in the bill by way of 
a manager's amendment that was not debated in the subcommittee but was 
inserted prior to the full committee and taken by voice vote.
  It relates to the restrictive language that does not allow the Corps 
of Engineers to upgrade its master plans and water control plans. The 
bottom line of this is that this is involved in litigation that has 
been going on at least since 1990 in the Federal courts. Most recently, 
the Federal courts have ordered by virtue of a decree in the District 
of Columbia District Court that the Corps of Engineers is to proceed 
with its NEPA studies. This relates to the water usage along two major 
river corridors that originate in the State of Georgia and also, of 
course, supply water into Alabama and Florida.
  We believe that we should not as a Congress interfere with the 
actions between States that are in litigation. The courts have actually 
spoken on the issue. We think they should be allowed to proceed with 
the actions they have directed the corps to take and that Congress 
should not inject itself into this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman from Alabama is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Boyd of Florida 
for purposes of control.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia. The amendment would strike a much needed 
provision that would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from revising 
the manuals which govern the water distribution rights of Alabama, 
Florida and Georgia regarding the Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa, 
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint River Basin. This matter is still 
in Federal court, and the court's decision to revise the manuals is 
opposed by both the Governors of Alabama and Florida.
  In addition, such an action would create severe distress in Alabama's 
waterways, harming both navigation and power production. In light of 
the ongoing Federal litigation, it is inappropriate for the courts to 
proceed with such revision of the manuals at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Deal 
amendment. It is very important to our State of Georgia. Georgia is one 
of the fastest growing States in this region, and because of this 
growth, we certainly need to make sure that we have this detrimental 
language, that would be very detrimental to Georgia, out of this bill.
  The manuals have not been updated for 50 years. Common sense would 
say that the corps is not operating based on the current situation in 
the area but on outdated population and outdated environmental 
information that was generated back in the 1950s. It is most important 
for my people that we have updated information, and that is why it is 
important for Mr. Deal's amendment to pass.
  These old, out-of-date manuals will result in a greatly increased 
cost of growth, inefficient and unpredictable operation of the river 
system, and will result in unstable water supplies for the 
municipalities, for the households and the businesses throughout our 
State of Georgia.
  Moreover, Mr. Chairman, for the last 15 years, the States of Georgia, 
Florida and Alabama have been engaged in litigation and mediation on 
this issue and much progress has indeed been made. But by placing this 
provision in the bill, Congress is now inserting itself into a 
situation that is best left for the State and the local entities to 
resolve.
  Therefore, I respectfully ask my colleagues to support the Deal 
amendment and let us move this offensive language out of the bill and 
move forward in the best interests of the entire region and certainly 
for the people of Georgia.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Everett, and also 
Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for including this 
language in there.
  Just to try to give the Members a brief history: In the 1990s, this 
Congress set up a compact that existed between Alabama, Georgia and 
Florida to try to resolve this water usage issue, and those 
negotiations were guided by the Army Corps of Engineers. Those States 
were unable to come together with their leadership to resolve this 
issue, and so matters reverted back into the courts.
  It would be completely inappropriate, Mr. Chairman, for the Army 
Corps of Engineers to take this step, and it would disadvantage Florida 
and Alabama significantly in this litigation.
  Now, the bottom of that system, that ACF system, is Apalachicola Bay, 
and our interests are purely the life and health of that bay and the 
life and health of the environmental system up in that Apalachicola 
Basin. If these rulings come out wrong and are disadvantaged by the 
Army Corps of Engineers' intervention, then you would have a situation 
where there would be some extremely harmful environmental damage done. 
So I would respectfully submit to the Members of this body that we 
reject the Deal amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the 
striking amendment offered by my fellow Georgian and friend, 
Congressman Deal.
  Section 110 would prevent the Corps of Engineers from moving forward 
with their revision of the master control plans and master manuals for 
the Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa River Basin in Alabama and Georgia or 
the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Flint River Basin in Alabama, Georgia 
and Florida.

[[Page 9465]]

  These control plans are essential to the corps' management of water 
resources in our region, not only to ensure equitable distribution of 
water resources but also to prevent flooding and preserve critical 
water infrastructure for the people of our region.
  Mr. Chairman, these master control plans have not been updated since 
the 1950s. In the 50-plus years since the last update, our region and 
its water needs have fundamentally changed, and these changes must be 
accounted for, not only as a matter of equity but as a matter of 
safety. Specifically, FEMA is investing heavily in revising the flood 
plain maps. This is necessary due to the overwhelming growth, not just 
in my State of Georgia but also in Alabama.
  The population explosion in the Southeast requires that the flood 
characteristics of the watersheds be updated as soon as possible. And 
delaying the update of the master control plan would delay the court-
ordered implementation of the D.C. settlement agreement. Any further 
delay is bad policy for the regional economy, and it is a safety risk 
for our residents.
  Section 110 is ill-conceived. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment to strike this language from the bill.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think Members back 
in their offices ought to know this, and this is a longstanding dispute 
between the States of Florida, Alabama and Georgia. What this amendment 
does is authorize $15 million or as much as $15 million to be spent by 
the Corps of Engineers to revise their manuals to try to interject 
their decisions into what is in court today.
  The court proceedings are still going on. They are on appeal. And 
they are not only going to affect our three States, they are going to 
affect everybody who eats oysters because, as Mr. Boyd said, 90 percent 
of the oysters come out of the basin at the bottom of the Apalachicola 
River. These things do not need to be decided; the purity of that water 
in that basin or in those seven rivers does not need to be decided on 
the floor of the House by people who do not know what the right 
decision is that ought to be made.
  It ought to be made in the courts in the deliberative process and not 
by some bureaucrat or not by Congressmen or -women who do not 
understand the issues involved. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple issue. We 
have ongoing litigation in the courts. There are hearings being held. 
There is discovery being conducted. And most of us who have 
conservative impulses on both sides of the aisle think the Constitution 
means something and the separation of powers means something, and the 
courts ought to finish their process.
  For the executive branch to come in and take a side in this dispute 
is disrespectful to the balance of power in the Constitution. There is 
a dispute that is going on that may have merit on both sides, but let 
the litigation play itself out. If this can happen in this instance, 
there is no possible controversy involving the Army Corps of Engineers 
where there is not a possibility of the executive branch inserting 
itself in the judicial. That is why I stand in strong opposition to the 
Deal amendment today, and I urge my colleagues to follow course.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, this is really pretty simple, and I am 
kind of amazed to hear Mr. Bachus and my good friend from Alabama, Mr. 
Davis, say that Congress ought not to be intervening, that this is a 
judicial matter, because that is exactly what it is. And that is 
exactly what Congress is proposing to do right now, and it is very 
inappropriate.
  The question whether or not the corps should conduct this study was 
submitted to the court. The court ruled against Alabama. Alabama and 
Florida do not like that decision. All three parties had their day in 
court on whether or not the corps should proceed with the study. Now 
Alabama and Florida are running to Congress trying to get Congress to 
intervene in a way that, frankly, Mr. Bachus and Mr. Davis both say 
would be inappropriate.
  I agree with that. It is inappropriate for Congress to intervene in a 
court proceeding where the court has specifically approved something. 
And the court has approved the corps moving forward with its study. For 
the Congress not to approve the Deal amendment is for Congress to 
intervene inappropriately in an ongoing court proceeding. Congress 
should not do that. It has not done it in the past.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this 
proposed amendment by the gentleman from Georgia.
  We all sympathize with the needs of the water resources that each 
State has, but we feel the language in the bill is necessary as it is 
written to prevent the Corps of Engineers from interfering in 
litigation which is meant to allocate those resources in a fair way 
among the States of Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, if the manuals are revised and are allowed 
to go forward, it is our belief that it will cause great harm to the 
State of Alabama. We will have real concerns over inadequate water for 
drinking, power generation, navigation, recreation and wildlife. For 
this reason, it is essential that all three States come to a mutual, 
equitable water-sharing agreement.
  We do not believe it is appropriate for the Corps of Engineers to 
unilaterally step in and to create water distribution without the 
approval of all three States. With all due respect to Mr. Deal's 
concern, I must ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

                              {time}  1615

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. For the information of the Committee, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) has 5 minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) has 2 minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), my colleague.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Deal amendment. I think it is 
appropriate that the Congress not interfere, and what this bill will do 
without the Deal amendment is allow the Congress to interfere with 
ongoing litigation.
  This case has been litigated in the district courts in Alabama, the 
United States District Court in the District of Columbia, and the 11th 
Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the claims of Florida and Alabama 
and has ruled in favor of Georgia. We would like very much for this 
Congress not to intercede and to interfere with the implementation of 
that court's order by violating the separation of powers and trying to 
hold back the Corps of Engineers through the appropriations process and 
preventing them from executing their duties under law.
  So I think that the Deal amendment is highly appropriate. It keeps 
this Congress on track in its constitutional duties, and it preserves 
the separation of powers. I urge the adoption of the Deal amendment.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida; and I want 
to say to my colleagues, while this sounds like a complicated issue, 
this really is not a complicated issue.
  I rise in strong opposition of the Deal amendment; and, first, I want 
to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member of this 
subcommittee and say that the language that you have put in this bill 
is fair. What we are after here today in Alabama and in Florida and in 
those other States as well is fairness.
  What we want is the opportunity to settle this dispute. We are in 
court.

[[Page 9466]]

The court knows that we have been in court. The corps comes in with a 
last-minute attempt to revise their manual, asking for money to do that 
at the same time that the court is taking this very issue up.
  That is not the way to do it right now. The President's budget did 
not include money for this. The chairman and the ranking member saw 
fit, in fairness to both sides, to keep this language in here.
  So what we are asking today is defeat the Deal amendment and support 
the base bill itself.
  If current conditions are used by the corps, if this amendment were 
to be allowed and current conditions are used to revise this manual, 
then that is being done at a time that would be of great disadvantage 
to the parties involved here.
  So this issue is very critical to Alabama and to Florida. We must 
defeat the Deal amendment.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time back to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Everett).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida 
yields back his time to the gentleman from Alabama.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, how much time does that give me?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama now has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, that also includes the right to 
conclude; is that correct?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), my colleague.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, we need to pass the Deal amendment. We 
need to strike section 110 of this bill that has been put in the bill 
at the last minute. That section is very, very simple that needs to be 
stricken. It prohibits the Corps of Engineers from updating the amount 
of water that counties in Georgia, Alabama and Florida can draw from 
the Corps of Engineers' lakes.
  Now, the Corps of Engineers is simply doing what the Federal courts 
have told them. Someone says this is in court now. No, this is not in 
court now.
  It is very clear. The corps will have to complete this NEPA process 
and was ordered to do so by the U.S. District Court of the District of 
Columbia as late as January 6, 2006, and it says do this as quickly as 
possible. The problem is we have not been able to work this out in the 
three States.
  The second part of the problem is Alabama and Florida do not want the 
Corps of Engineers to work this out. Well, maybe they will be and maybe 
they will not, but we have to have a master plan. So says the law.
  So support the Deal amendment.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Price), my colleague.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, there are some agreements here. 
One is that this is a long-standing discussion and battle and it is in 
ongoing litigation in the court. It is a battle between some States, 
but I do not know that there is not a whole lot of agreement.
  Everybody says that we ought to let the courts decide, but those who 
are opposed to this amendment begin the double talk at that point.
  If this amendment fails, the Corps of Engineers will not be able to 
follow the court order. On January 6 of this year, the D.C. court 
ordered the corps to undertake the NEPA process ``as expeditiously as 
practicable.'' Section 110 that was put in the bill would not allow 
them to do so.
  Curiously, Alabama informally requested that the judge stay the corps 
from proceeding with the NEPA analysis or updating the water control 
plans, but she refused to do so.
  Alabama itself says let the courts decide, and we agree. Let the 
courts decide, not an amendment which was inserted into this bill 
without discussion.
  By accepting the language in the Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill, Congress is inserting itself both into the three-State 
negotiation on State water rights and a legal issue which has been 
ongoing.
  Support the Deal amendment.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my colleague.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman; and I just want to 
say that the Corps of Engineers has had water control plans in place 
for 50 years. The plans are guidelines so that everybody can kind of 
have some input and some feedback on what is working and what is not.
  This is an area that is one of the fastest-growing parts of the 
United States of America, and their own regulations that the corps has, 
they know they need to update them.
  So what we are saying is let the system that is in place stay in 
place without Congress inserting language that pulls the rug out from 
under it. If this needs to be done on a congressional level, then let 
us do so with all the States' delegations together. Let us not have two 
States against one State. Let us all sit down and work out a 
legislative solution if a legislative solution is necessary. I do not 
think that it is right now.
  I think that the best thing for us to do is to let the Corps of 
Engineers continue to work the process as it has been set up and as it 
is intended to do so.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner) to close our arguments.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Everett).
  First of all, I would like to say that those of us from Alabama and 
Florida find ourselves in a strange position today. Because, normally, 
we speak with a similar accent when we talk with our fellow brothers 
and sisters from the great State of Georgia. But, like my other friends 
from the Alabama and Florida who have already spoken, I, too, rise 
today in opposition to the gentleman from Georgia's amendment and to 
support the underlying bill.
  At the outset, I want to, first of all, join my other friends in 
thanking Chairman Hobson, and the ranking member as well, for including 
this report language in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
  Let the record note that the chairman took this action after Members 
from both the Alabama and Florida delegations made him aware of the 
fact that it appears that our friends from Georgia are trying to get 
the Army Corps of Engineers to update this master manual, which on the 
surface sounds like a very reasonable request. It probably does need to 
be updated, except for the fact that it would come at a time where it 
would be detrimental to the people of Alabama and the people of 
Florida, and it would occur at the very time that this decades-long 
dispute is being litigated in the Federal court.
  Mr. Chairman, if the Army Corps of Engineers goes forward with their 
plans to update this manual before the court makes a final decision, 
then, in essence, the corps is picking a winner even before the court 
has had the chance to make a determination. That would be the same 
thing as a judge finding someone either innocent or guilty before all 
of the facts have been presented.
  The process can and should work, but it cannot work if one Federal 
agency is going to choose sides and choose a winner over another.
  Vote ``no'' on the Deal amendment and allow the taxpayers of Alabama 
and Florida to have their day in court.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I would share the respect that I have for my colleagues from Georgia 
and Florida. This is just one of those issues we have a disagreement 
on.
  Let us set the record straight. Yes, there is ongoing litigation. It 
all started in modern times in 1990 when Alabama sued the Corps of 
Engineers in the Northern District of Alabama, certainly a favorable 
venue, and has proven to be favorable for them over the years.
  At a later point in time, about 13 years later, a suit was instituted 
in the

[[Page 9467]]

District of Columbia court. It is that court that has now resolved some 
of the issues and that court has issued an order, even though Florida 
and Alabama attempted to intervene to prevent that court order from 
going in effect.
  On January 20, 2006, Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court 
of the District of Columbia ordered the corps to perform its 
obligations under the settlement agreement ``as expeditiously as 
practicable.''
  They then went back to the Alabama court where they filed suit in 
1990. They asked that judge to intervene and to enjoin the operation of 
the District Court of Columbia. That judge did temporarily until she 
was overturned by a ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, but 
they also asked that same judge if she would order the Corps of 
Engineers not to do the NEPA and the water plan update, and even that 
judge who has been a favorable venue refused to do so.
  The reality is the court has ordered this to go forward. Congress 
should not inject itself into this issue.
  And, yes, I compliment my friends from Alabama for outnumbering us on 
the Appropriations Committee and being able to put this in the bill, 
but I urge you to support the Deal amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the gentleman from Georgia's Amendment.
  This provision, if enacted, would permit the Army Corps of Engineers 
to make an end-run around an ongoing Federal lawsuit.
  It would reprogram already appropriated funds away important existing 
river projects.
  It would also cause severe distress to Alabama's waterways, harming 
both navigation and power production.
  The Corps of Engineers' manual on the A-C-T River Basin hasn't been 
revised since 1951.
  This revision hasn't occurred even though nine dams, including four 
structures built by the Corps, have since been constructed in the A-C-T 
Basin.
  Furthermore, the President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget request did not 
include a request for this action.
  It is important to note that the entire Alabama delegation--along 
with members of the Florida delegation--have been working with the 
Corps to resolve this issue.
  The language included in this bill, if left intact, would simply 
allow the current litigation process to be completed.
  And it would not allow funds appropriated for Fiscal Years 2006 or 
2007 to be used to revise the A-C-T Basin manual.
  I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my 
colleague Congressman Aderholt, as well as the other members of the 
Alabama and Florida delegations in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
proposed amendment by the gentleman from Georgia. The three States of 
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida have areas which are dependent on the 
same water sources. While I sympathize with all those needs, the 
language in the bill is necessary to prevent the Corps of Engineers 
from interfering in litigation which is meant to allocate those 
resources in a fair way among the three States.
  Mr. Chairman, in 2005 we learned that the Corps of Engineers planned 
to revise the manuals which govern water sharing between three States--
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. The corps' ACT manual has not been 
revised since it was written in 1951, even though nine dams have been 
built and successfully operated in the ACT Basin since then. In other 
words, there is no urgent need to revise the manuals, and doing so 
impacts the water supply of millions of persons in the Southeast. 
Furthermore, this matter is still in Federal court, and allowing the 
corps to revise these manuals now will interfere with ongoing 
litigation.
  Mr. Chairman, we have tried to work this issue out with the corps 
directly. On April 14, 2005, the entire Alabama delegation sent a 
letter to Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, asking that he explain the corps' actions in this matter. In 
response, on April 26, 2005 Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 
Works John Woodley wrote that the corps ``will withdraw and disclaim 
any intention to re-evaluate or update the relevant operating 
procedures and manuals until all relevant litigation has concluded, or 
the three States' Governors reach an agreement.''
  However, Mr. Chairman, after that, the corps did not hold to their 
commitment. In a letter to Governor Bob Riley of Alabama, dated January 
30, 2006, Assistant Secretary Woodley stated that since the relevant 
litigation has concluded, the corps will now begin revising its 
manuals. This litigation, however, is not concluded. My understanding 
is that the ACF litigation has been appealed, and the ACT litigation is 
still actively underway.
  Mr. Chairman, if the corps' manuals revisions are allowed to go 
forward, it will cause great harm to the State of Alabama. We will have 
inadequate water for drinking, power generation, navigation, 
recreation, and wildlife. For this reason, it is essential all three 
States come to a mutual equitable water sharing agreement. It is not 
appropriate for the corps to unilaterally step in and decree water 
distribution without the approval of all three States.
  With all due respect to Mr. Deal's concerns, I must ask for a ``no'' 
vote in the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BONNER. 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.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a 
brief colloquy with the chairman regarding funding for several 
recreation areas at two Virginia lakes managed by the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers. I commend the chairman and his staff for their hard work 
on this bill. Considering the budget constraints, they have crafted 
excellent legislation.
  In response to what the Corps of Engineers has identified as low 
funding for Operations and Maintenance, the corps has announced plans 
to evaluate seven recreation sites for possible closure in 2007 at John 
H. Kerr Lake and Philpott Lake in Virginia. These recreation sites are 
of great importance to citizens in these areas, and their closure would 
net only a savings of $97,000. There must be other ways for the corps 
to reform its procedures in order to reduce spending while keeping 
these recreation sites open to the public as camp grounds and picnic 
areas.
  I hope that we can continue to work together to identify ways in 
which funding can be provided for these recreation areas either through 
additional funds that may become available in conference or through 
more appropriate reforms by the Corps of Engineers.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. HOBSON. I understand the gentleman's concern and realize the 
importance of the Corps of Engineers' recreation sites to local 
communities. In a time of static budgets and aging infrastructure, we 
must work together to make our limited funding go further.
  I commit to working with the gentleman from Virginia to review 
existing corps policies and funding to address this issue.
  Mr. GOODE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Louisiana.
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, what I have here today is a map of the 
gulf coast. It is not all-inclusive. Jo Bonner knows that. But from 
Galveston Bay to Mobile Bay has been a total disaster, and I am from a 
district that concerns me about New Orleans, but we keep talking only 
about Katrina, and we keep talking only about New Orleans. I am not 
saying we shouldn't. I am here today to say that with these natural 
disasters that we have had and the help that you in the Congress have 
given us, it is tremendously appreciated; however, immediately 
following those storms, coming to Congress and asking for help and, in

[[Page 9468]]

recent weeks, bringing amendments and asking for additional moneys to 
build levees, and we have not even gotten to the coastal restoration 
issue. We were told that maybe we needed to have the authorization 
first. We were told to put it in the regular appropriations bill.
  We are here, and it didn't get into the regular appropriations bill. 
So I guess these projects in Cameron, LaFourche, Terrebonne, St. 
Charles and other parishes, inclusive of Plaquemines Parish, it was 
felt they should be excluded because there wasn't enough people to 
justify the cost. A place on the Gulf of Mexico that services the 
offshore oil industry and brings in 80 percent of the offshore oil 
through pipelines through that parish and provides another important 
aspect to its presence there, it is the levee or the breakwater or 
whatever you might want to call it, barrier island, that protects 
Mississippi under many circumstances from the storm surge.
  So I am here today after asking for, I think the number was $430 
million, and having several of my friends say that is a lot of money, 
and then a week later, Mr. Powell came and asked for in excess of $4 
billion and then readjusted it down when they took Plaquemines Parish 
out, because there are lots of projects throughout south Louisiana that 
are necessary if we are going to protect the residents of that State. 
There are many projects in the southwest part of Louisiana where Rita 
has gone, the storm that is forgotten, the storm you hear no one 
talking about in Port Arthur, and in Texas, it was devastating also.
  I want to say that I do appreciate this body and everything that it 
has done for New Orleans, but please remember that the rest of the gulf 
coast has been tremendously affected, and these people that keep the 
oil and gas industry in operation and produce the seafood for this 
country as well as run the ports and export the goods and commodities 
from this Nation need additional help.
  I thank the gentleman for allowing me the time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern and 
very good work.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah 
     Project Completion Act, $38,552,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $965,000 shall be deposited into the 
     Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use 
     by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
     Commission.
       In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying 
     out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the 
     Interior, $1,603,000, to remain available until expended.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

       The following appropriations shall be expended to execute 
     authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:

                      Water and Related Resources


              (including transfer of funds and rescission)

       For management, development, and restoration of water and 
     related natural resources and for related activities, 
     including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 
     reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling 
     related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and 
     related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with, 
     State and local governments, Indian tribes, and others, 
     $849,122,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $57,298,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper 
     Colorado River Basin Fund and $26,952,000 shall be available 
     for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development 
     Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary may be 
     advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund; of which not more 
     than $500,000 is for high priority projects which shall be 
     carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, as authorized by 
     16 U.S.C. 1706: Provided, That such transfers may be 
     increased or decreased within the overall appropriation under 
     this heading: Provided further, That of the total 
     appropriated, the amount for program activities that can be 
     financed by the Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of Reclamation 
     special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i) shall 
     be derived from that Fund or account: Provided further, That 
     funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 are available until 
     expended for the purposes for which contributed: Provided 
     further, That funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a shall be 
     credited to this account and are available until expended for 
     the same purposes as the sums appropriated under this 
     heading: Provided further, That funds available for 
     expenditure for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program 
     may be expended by the Bureau of Reclamation for site 
     remediation on a non-reimbursable basis: Provided further, 
     That from unobligated balances made available under section 
     2507 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
     for the Bureau of Reclamation's At Risk Terminal Lakes 
     Program, $88,000,000 are rescinded: Provided further, That 
     $10,000,000 of the funds provided herein shall be deposited 
     in the San Gabriel Restoration Fund established by section 
     1110 of division B, title I of Public Law 106-554 as amended: 
     Provided further, That of the sums provided herein, 
     $1,000,000 shall be used for assessing the feasibility of 
     relocating the Highway 49 bridge, Auburn-Folsom South Unit of 
     the Central Valley Project.

                Central Valley Project Restoration Fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $41,478,000, to be 
     derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central 
     Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d), 
     3404(c)(3), 3405(f), and 3406(c)(1) of Public Law 102-575, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of 
     Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount 
     of the additional mitigation and restoration payments 
     authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available under this 
     heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of water 
     for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to 
     in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or order.

                    California Bay-Delta Restoration


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply, 
     Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act, Public Law 
     108-361, consistent with plans to be approved by the 
     Secretary of the Interior, $40,110,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which such amounts as may be necessary to 
     carry out such activities may be transferred to appropriate 
     accounts of other participating Federal agencies to carry out 
     authorized purposes: Provided, That funds appropriated herein 
     may be used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED 
     Program management: Provided further, That the use of any 
     funds provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for 
     program-wide management and oversight activities shall be 
     subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior: 
     Provided further, That CALFED implementation shall be carried 
     out in a balanced manner with clear performance measures 
     demonstrating concurrent progress in achieving the goals and 
     objectives of the Program: Provided further, That $6,000,000 
     shall be transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers to carry 
     out further study and analysis of the stability of the levee 
     projects authorized under section 103(f)(3) of Public Law 
     108-361.

                       Policy and Administration

       For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and 
     related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, to remain available until expended, 
     $58,069,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be 
     nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That 
     no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be 
     available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and 
     administration expenses.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be 
     available for purchase of not to exceed 14 passenger motor 
     vehicles, of which 11 are for replacement only.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to determine the final 
     point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis 
     Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the 
     water quality standards of the State of California as 
     approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis 
     drainage waters.
       (b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program 
     and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 
     shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as 
     reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully 
     repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program-Alternative 
     Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP-Alternative Repayment Plan'' 
     described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report, 
     Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley 
     Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared

[[Page 9469]]

     by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any 
     future obligations of funds by the United States relating to, 
     or providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for 
     the San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis 
     Unit beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to 
     Federal reclamation law.
        Sec. 202. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to purchase or lease water in the 
     Middle Rio Grande or the Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico 
     unless said purchase or lease is in compliance with the 
     purchase requirements of section 202 of Public Law 106-60.

  Mr. HOBSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of title II be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                     Energy Supply and Conservation

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for energy supply and energy 
     conservation 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, $2,025,527,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2009.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

  Mr. MARKEY. 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. Markey:
       Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount insert: ``(reduced 
     by $40,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hobson) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Global Nuclear Energy 
Partnership receiving an additional $40 million in this budget over 
what it received last year. It received $80 million worth of taxpayers' 
dollars last year, and here we are seeing a 50 percent increase in the 
taxpayers' contribution to something that should be paid for by the 
private sector.
  This is now one of the wealthiest, most successful, most profitable 
industries in the United States, the domestic nuclear energy industry. 
If there is any industry, apart from the oil and gas industry, that has 
no business being out here on the floor asking for handouts from the 
taxpayer at this time, then you have to put the nuclear industry at the 
top of the list.
  And what is the essence of this Global Nuclear Energy Partnership? 
Well, sad to say, it is that we will cut deals with countries like 
Bulgaria, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Korea, on and on, where our private sector 
companies will be building nuclear power plants in those countries and 
returning the nuclear waste to the United States for reprocessing in 
our country. So on the one hand, the Congress is saying, well, we don't 
want any more immigrants from any of these countries, but send us your 
nuclear waste if an American company has been able to build nuclear 
power plants there and make a profit from it.
  Well, ladies and gentlemen, it should not be the business of the 
House, of the people who represent hardworking taxpayers, to be handing 
over all this money to very wealthy industries. They are doing quite 
well, thank you. This is, once again, an example of an industry now 50 
years old; this industry is like someone who is 50 years old still 
living at home with mom and dad and expecting mom and dad to continue 
to subsidize them; to give them a hand out.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Boy, there is more rhetoric on this floor about GNEP and what is 
going on there than I have heard in quite some time. The fact is the 
Federal Government has the responsibility under the Nuclear Policy Act 
to take care of the byproduct of this stuff. Those people who use 
energy that is partly produced by nuclear energy have been paying a tax 
in order that the Federal Government would build a repository and 
finally take control of this. If you want the byproduct, the waste 
product of nuclear waste to be handled by private companies and have 
them in control of it, then I think you are asking for big problems.
  For years, I have been asking the Federal Government, the Department 
of Energy, to give us a vision of what they see as the future of energy 
development in this country and how we are going to supply the baseload 
needs in this country. GNEP is the first comprehensive forward-looking 
plan for nuclear energy development that I have seen come out of this 
or any administration in decades. It takes into consideration the 
entire fuel cycle, from the mining uranium to final disposition of 
spent fuel.
  It will render civilian nuclear material unusable in nuclear weapons. 
I will repeat that: It will render civilian nuclear materials unusable 
in nuclear weapons. It will use much of the energy in the fuel rods 
that is left behind now. And GNEP promises to make Yucca Mountain the 
only repository our Nation will need for the final disposition of spent 
nuclear fuel.
  If you believe that global warming is a problem, if you believe that 
we can't afford to shut down nuclear power plants today that contribute 
over 20 percent of our electricity, and I suspect much of it in 
Massachusetts, the gentleman's home State; if you believe that we can't 
shut that down and that it makes sense to provide our baseload with an 
emission-free type of energy, such as nuclear power, and if we don't 
pursue GNEP, then we better start looking and debating on this floor 
where we are going to put Yucca II, Yucca III, Yucca IV, and Yucca V, 
because that is what is going to happen.
  The simple fact is, most Americans now support nuclear energy, and 
most Americans know that we can't meet our growing energy needs without 
it. I urge you to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The problem with this program is that the Department of Energy is 
only guessing about how much it is ultimately going to cost. Their 
range is from $3 billion to $6 billion just for a demonstration 
project, because it doesn't know the answers to the ultimate questions 
about cost, about feasibility, about the nuclear proliferation 
consequences. It doesn't know the answers to any of these questions.
  But if, again, the nuclear industry wants to get back out on the road 
and start selling nuclear power plants around the globe, they should do 
it. Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so fast listening to this 
debate that he would qualify for a subsidy under this bill as a new 
electrical generating source. That is how bad this is.
  This is a total violation of free market principles. There are no 
answers at all that you are providing, except that you want to stick 
your hand into the pockets of the American taxpayers, and it is just 
wrong.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and 
let me just say to the sponsor, who asserts that the reprocessing is 
too expensive and will add to the cost, that we don't know what the 
cost is.
  My Subcommittee on Energy for the Science Committee has spent an 
entire hearing on the economics of reprocessing, and today it might be 
cheaper to mine and use enriched uranium, but the enrichment technology 
has had 30

[[Page 9470]]

years to develop. We stopped the process. President Carter stopped the 
process that is needed to treat and use all of the nuclear energy.
  So, if anything, this concern only reinforces the need to increase 
the R&D on technologies for the back end of the fuel cycle in order to 
bring down the cost. We have got to have this process if we are going 
to have the energy needed for our children and grandchildren to live in 
this country. But we also have to look at taking the nuclear energy and 
using all of it by reprocessing and reestablishing that program.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  You know, the problem with this whole debate is that, within the same 
bill, there is funding for Yucca Mountain in order to store all of the 
spent fuel that the nuclear industry has created here domestically. Yet 
they are coming in here saying, well, we need another solution to the 
same problem. We also need the taxpayers to subsidize ultimately $3 
billion, $6 billion, which is just a demonstration project, and 
ultimately, $20 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion or $50 billion for 
reprocessing technology; two paid-for-by-the-taxpayer solutions to the 
same problem, even though Yucca Mountain is supposed to solve the 
problem.
  Why is that? Because this program does what President Bush wants to 
do, which is to offer cradle-to-grave services for countries around the 
world. American companies will build nuclear power plants around the 
world, and then they will ship the nuclear waste to the United States. 
And by the way, this waste, when it is reprocessed, is the worst of all 
materials because it can be used for nuclear weapons but it is not too 
dangerous for terrorists to handle as a dirty bomb at the same time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my ranking member, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. He 
mentioned multiple solutions. The fact is we have a waste problem.
  As I pointed out in my general remarks, last year the Congress voted 
again to move ahead to provide funds to pursue a competitive process 
for choosing sites for integrative reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel 
as well as interim storage. The fact is the chairman and I and the 
subcommittee are committed to pursuing Yucca Mountain. That is not 
enough. If we are to have a nuclear industry and to have an investment 
in our energy future, we also have to examine options to reduce waste. 
That is what we are about.
  I also believe that the subcommittee has taken a very thoughtful 
approach, and people have only to look at pages of committee report 
language that is very explicit in detail relative to the concerns and 
observations we have made relative to the GNEP proposal that the 
administration has put forth.
  So we are trying to solve an energy problem dealing with our energy 
future. I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman and the ranking 
member for the work they have done here, and I take small exception 
here because you have cut back the $250 million the President 
requested. I think that is a good move, but this would simply level out 
the funding so that next year will have as much funding as this year.
  If you go to the Savannah River Site in my State, you will see the K 
Reactor, on which we have spent close to $2 billion, it never was 
operated again; the NPR, on which we spent $40 million on the 
environmental impact statement; the MOX fuel facility, which is being 
abandoned today after millions were spent; and Agnes, where we trod 
down this road once before toward nuclear reprocessing and realized it 
was not the way to go.
  And today more than ever, when we do not want to open up new nuclear 
processes which give rise to more fissile material, there are really 
legitimate doubts about this path.
  I respect the course that the committee has taken, but slow it down. 
Let us take a closer look at this before we plunge headlong into 
something that could cost $20 billion, $30 billion, maybe $40 billion 
before it comes to full fruition.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the committee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, to review, the President of the United States 
rightly asked for $250 million for GNEP to help us stand the nuclear 
industry back up in this country. Decades after Three Mile Island, we 
need energy independence. The committee did not have enough money, so 
we appropriated $150 million at the subcommittee level. At the full 
committee, we accepted an amendment to reduce it to $120 million, and 
now they are wanting to cut it further.
  France understands, as an environmentally sensitive country, that in 
order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you have to use nuclear. 
Seventy percent of their electricity is generated from nuclear power in 
France.
  They do not get it in Massachusetts, apparently. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has fought nuclear in every capacity, every time it has 
come to the floor the entire 12 years that I have been here. That is 
what this is really about.
  If his amendment stands, it would leave spent nuclear fuel at reactor 
sites in Massachusetts at five places: at Pilgrim 1; Yankee-Rowe; 
research reactors at MIT; the University of Massachusetts; and 
Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
  Defeat the Markey amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey amendment, 
which would cut $40 million from the so-called GNEP, the Global Nuclear 
Energy Partnership.
  GNEP is an exceedingly ambitious set of proposals. It runs the gamut, 
from expanding the use of nuclear power, to closing the loophole in the 
nuclear fuel cycle, to developing a new generation of advanced ``fast'' 
nuclear reactors. Among other things, it calls for restarting nuclear 
reprocessing, a risky venture abandoned by the Carter Administration in 
the 1970s out of cost and proliferation concerns. It moves us ahead 
before we know the long term costs or international implications. On 
issues of this consequence, we should tread lightly.
  I have concerns over GNEP on several fronts. First, I am concerned 
about reprocessing of nuclear spent fuel, because it lends itself to 
the production of fissile material. On its face, the idea of reusing 
spent nuclear fuel sounds appealing. Proponents point out that we only 
use 3-5 percent of nuclear fuel in the first reaction. They claim that 
reprocessing will allow us to recycle spent fuel and captured the 
untapped tap energy potential. But recycling nuclear fuel is not so 
easy, and there is a limit to the number of times you can put a fuel 
rod through reprocessing before fission by-products make additional 
recycling impractical. So, the amount of reusable energy that the 
process yields is questionable. As explained to me by DoE, reprocessing 
is really more about reducing the heat from spent nuclear fuel, to 
facilitate storage, than it is about generating more usable fuel.
  Questionable energy yields are only one problem with reprocessing. 
The other problem is that re-running nuclear fuel multiple times is one 
means of converting commercial nuclear fuel rods into weapons-grade 
plutonium. The Department of Energy has told us that the new 
reprocessing technology they hope to use (UREX+) is ``proliferation 
resistant'' since the radioactive emissions will still be lethal to 
unprotected handlers. But there is no such thing as being completely 
proliferation-resistance. A suicidal terrorist could find a way to 
steal, handle, and transport any nuclear material, and increasing the 
neutron flux simply brings them one step closer to using this material 
for a nuclear weapon.
  On another front, I am greatly concerned about the potential cost of 
the GNEP proposal. Though the President's budget request called for 
only $250 million this year, estimates have ranged up to $40 billion 
over the next 10 years. This is huge price-tag for an amorphous 
program.
  As an example, the Department of Energy has indicated that, as part 
of GNEP, they

[[Page 9471]]

would like to build a scaled-down facility to demonstrate UREX+ 
reprocessing technology. But when pressed for details, DoE has said 
that this facility could range in scale from 1 ton throughput per year 
to 200 tons and on up to 500 tons per year. This is almost as large as 
commercial scale reprocessing operations overseas, and is hardly a 
demonstration project. Moreover, the Department of Energy does not know 
where the demonstration facility will be sited, what the environmental 
or engineering costs will be for the facility, or what the ultimate 
cost will be to construct it. Even further, they do not know how many 
of these facilities will be needed if we ever move to a commercial 
scale.
  We are running a budget deficit of $300-350 billion this year alone. 
The Department of Energy itself is has more major acquisition projects 
on its plate than it can carry to fruition. I am wary of adding another 
$40 billion liability with GNEP before we know fully what we are 
getting ourselves into.
  The Markey amendment before us today takes a pragmatic approach to 
this problem. It does not eliminate funding for the program; rather, it 
reduces the $120 million remaining for the program by $40 million, 
effectively freezing GNEP funding at this year's funding level.
  Before we rush headlong toward the latest acronym, GNEP, we should 
make the Department come to us with concrete proposals, more definitive 
costs and benefits, so that this far-reaching project can be measured 
against other priorities.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McHugh). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. 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 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. 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 Ms. DeLauro:
       Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 11, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $25,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would restore 
funding to the State Energy Program which the underlying bill 
eliminates, and it would happen by reducing the administrative funding 
for the Department of Energy to last year's levels. That means that the 
Department's administrative funds would amount to about $278 million.
  The administration thought this program worthy enough to propose an 
increase to $49.5 million from approximately $35 million last year. 
Essentially I am saying this amendment would simply fund this program 
at $25 million.
  The State Energy Program, it provides grants to States and directs 
funding to State energy offices. The States use these grants to address 
their energy priorities, program funding to adopt emerging renewable 
energy and energy-efficient technologies.
  States have implemented countless initiatives funded by this program 
that have reduced energy costs and have increased efficiency.
  Let me give you two or three examples. The Texas Energy Office's Loan 
Star Program has reduced building energy consumption and taxpayers' 
energy costs through the efficient operation of public buildings, 
saving taxpayers more than $172 million through energy efficiency 
projects.
  New Mexico, the State energy office is supporting an expandable 
renewable energy usage, tax incentives for hybrid vehicles, school 
energy-efficiency programs, technical assistance to the wind industry 
and expansion of geothermal resources. With the funding, New Mexico has 
been able to meet approximately 40 energy performance goals with an 
annual energy savings in millions, including an expansion in the use of 
ethanol and biofuels.
  My own State of Connecticut, the program supports 31 municipalities 
to help them make their schools and public buildings more energy 
efficient.
  The value of this program speaks for itself. It enables energy 
offices to design and implement programs according to the needs of 
their economies, the potential of their natural resources and the 
participation of their local industries. For every dollar we spend on 
this public-private partnership, we save $7.23, while almost $11 is 
leveraged in the State, local and private funds.
  That means by funding the program at $25 million this year, we could 
help save as much as $180 million just in fiscal year 2007.
  Mr. Chairman, helping States to carry out their own energy efficiency 
and renewable energy programs is an effort in which the Federal 
Government not only has a stake, it has an obligation. This is 
something we should be encouraging, not eliminating. I am asking my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
This bill does in fact cut $49.7 million to State grants.
  This cut was done for several reasons: to fund the higher 
congressional priorities that were cut by the administration; in 
reaction to a DOE IG report regarding the implementation of the 
program; and an assessment of what the grant program is adding to 
energy research and development, the mainstay of the DOE portfolio.
  The IG report did say DOE does not know if the program is working. 
The IG report did say that States aren't sure what energy savings are 
coming from these State grants. The IG report did say that the States 
have large uncosted balances, and aren't spending the money that they 
do get in the grant and award process. The IG report did say energy 
savings proclaimed by proponents can't be tracked to State grants 
solely. They may be from other programs that we do support, like 
weatherization.
  But I want you to know that the IG report did say that given the 
broad goals of the program, funds were being spent consistently. 
However, I would contend we ought to look at what the States can spend 
this money on and do: State employee salaries, travel and 
administrative supplies. In fact, of the States examined by the IG, 66 
percent had administrative costs in excess of 29 percent to as high as 
57 percent, but these are allowable under the grant statute.
  Finally, I would contend that these grants may have served a useful 
purpose 20 years ago to raise the consciousness of energy efficiency 
and conservation. But, frankly, these services are not now in demand by 
the public, and our dollars are better suited for making the 
technologies available that are in demand, rather than feel-good 
``coordination'' activities of this program.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  On the IG report, and I quote: ``Nothing came to our attention during 
our visits to six States to indicate that they were not spending the 
funds for their intended purpose.''
  If anyone wants to know, I have a list of all of the States and the 
amount of money they receive in grants every year from this program, 
and they will get nothing next year if we do not restore some funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a crazy budget. It really is. It 
authorizes $50 million to help the oil companies to drill in deep water 
even though

[[Page 9472]]

they reported $113 billion in profits. It allows for drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That is where they are going to be 
heading tomorrow on the House floor.
  And this shows you the hypocrisy coefficient on energy policy. Last 
year, they trumpeted on the House floor and the President with a 
flourish signed the bill that put in $100 million for State energy 
plans for conservation at the State level, $100 million.
  Then, in January, the President sends up his budget, $49.5 million.
  And today, out on the House floor, the true agenda of the Republican 
Party once again reveals itself: zero. Zero for conservation. Nothing. 
Meaning that the $100 million last August that the President signed, 
the $49.5 million that he asked this year, all dismissed while we are 
going to tip the taxpayer upside down and subsidize the nuclear, oil, 
gas and coal industries.
  But the American taxpayer knows we have to learn to work smarter, not 
harder; how to conserve, how to use technologies that will reduce our 
consumption. We only have 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world. 
We import 70 percent of the oil we consume. That is why we need the 
DeLauro amendment in order to make sure that we put conservation number 
one, to back out this imported oil from around the world.
  Vote ``aye'' on the DeLauro amendment.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me talk about hypocrisy. Let me talk about 
extraneous matter out here. I mean, this is outrageous.
  First of all, if we want to save money, you do not go back and do 
these itty-bitty State grants. My State gets a million dollars out of 
this, $1.6 million. Big deal.
  Under your deal, it is going to get $250,000 or less the way you have 
drafted this amendment. It is absolutely ridiculous to send money up 
here. We take administration off the top, and then we send it back to 
the States, and they start it all over again and take a bunch of 
salaries.
  The group that is out here now advocating this thing on behalf of all 
of the States is funded by this program. This is just another pork-
barrel program for Governors of States. We ought to get rid of it. The 
State grant does absolutely nothing. This amendment will make it even 
less effective. And what it does to the Department of Energy is 
outrageous.
  Under this, this mandates reduction of 100 employees. Those employees 
are responsible for the financial integrity of the Department. The next 
thing they will be saying is, we are not doing it right, and that is 
because we have cut 100 people out of it. These employees are 
responsible for the Department's cyber security. Then we hear it is all 
gone.
  Programs like Minority Economic Impact, General Counsel and the 
Office of Economic Impact and Diversity would be severely impacted.
  This amendment is outrageous. You want to get rid of pork-barrel 
stuff around here, these kinds of programs are a waste of money.
  There are a couple of others in this bill that I would take out 
totally, too, but this one is particularly egregious because it doesn't 
do the job.
  Vote ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, on Rollcall 198, I inadvertently 
voted against the amendment offered by my colleague Rep. Rosa DeLauro 
to restore $25 million to the Department of Energy's State Energy 
Program. I had intended to vote yes because the State Energy Program is 
effective and important program that provides vital funds to 55 State 
Energy Offices around the country.
  While energy prices continue to escalate, State Energy Offices are 
one of the few on the ground resources to increase energy efficiency 
for consumers, educate the public on ways of reducing energy use, and 
monitor the price and supply situation.
  That's why I was puzzled and disappointed that the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Subcommittee effectively terminated the 
State Energy Program, SEP, in its FY07 bill.
  In many of the States, the impact will be devastating. For States 
without other dedicated sources of revenue, State energy services will 
be terminated. Many legislatures have already adjourned for the year 
and will not have an opportunity to attempt to step into the breach. 
Destroying the State Energy Offices at the very time that energy costs 
are hovering at record highs, many oil producing nations are unstable, 
and supplies are tight makes no sense.
  It was just last year that this body voted to authorize $100 million 
for the SEP in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In his FY07 budget 
request, the President asked for $49.5 million for the SEP, restoring a 
20 percent cut from last year. So I find it troubling that the Energy 
and Water Development Subcommittee voted in contradiction both to the 
Administration's proposal and the recently adopted energy policy of 
Congress.
  SEP has a proven record of reducing energy consumption for 
residential consumers, as well as schools, hospitals, small businesses 
and agriculture, and has funded a variety of important programs in 
Colorado.
  Restoration of SEP funding will have an immediate effect on reducing 
demand for energy, allowing us to leverage specific investments in a 
variety of energy efficiency projects in all types of buildings. In 
addition, SEP funding will permit us to expand aggressive public 
information efforts, convincing consumers and businesses alike to 
increase their use of energy efficient products, add insulation to 
their homes, utilize hybrid or ethanol-fueled vehicles, etc. Studies 
have shown that for every Federal dollar invested in this program, over 
$7 is saved in direct energy costs.
  I am pleased that the DeLauro amendment passed the House, and I 
regret that the final vote tally does not reflect my strong support for 
the State Energy Program.

                              {time}  1700

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. 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 
Connecticut will be postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. 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 Ms. Millender-McDonald:
       Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  My amendment addresses a critical energy source of our national 
renewable energy portfolio that needs to be a priority in the energy 
debate. As we know, the affordable energy situation is far from 
resolved in our Nation. My amendment provides for the necessary funds 
to continue the Geothermal Technology Program and to continue our 
Federal support of cleaner alternative power. This energy is cost-
effective and cleaner.
  Recently, an Associated Press article stated that the Federal 
Government has a backlog of 230 lease applications to prospect for 
geothermal energy. This AP article also states that the average age of 
an application to prospect geothermal sites is 9 years.
  Recent supply projections from the American Gas Association show that 
natural gas suppliers will continue to lag behind the demand in the 
foreseeable future, resulting in continued high prices. The high cost 
of natural gas affects electricity and home heating costs across the 
United States. This is why we need to continue to support Federal 
investment in geothermal energy and to support the Geothermal 
Technology Program.
  Now we do know that most of the geothermal power plants were built in

[[Page 9473]]

the mid-1980s and early 1990s when energy markets were receptive to 
alternative energy investment. Since then, there has been a significant 
decline in this investment.
  The Bush administration has repeatedly championed the need to expand 
our renewable energy resources and to develop our country's geothermal 
energy resources. The Department of the Interior and the Department of 
Energy have jointly stated that commitment to increase our energy 
security would be by expending the use of indigenous resources on 
Federal lands, while accelerating protection of the environment.
  A recent report from the Department of Energy found that California, 
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington State have the greatest 
potential for quick development of geothermal resources. In fact, the 
study, Mr. Chairman, listed nine ``top pick'' sites in California and 
ten in Nevada.
  As we work on improving our affordable energy options, we must 
support the Geothermal Technology Program. It is also a job creation 
program. It will ultimately mean about 150 to 200 jobs in a community.
  The minimal $5 million that I am asking for will be taken from the 
Hydrogen Technology Program to be placed in the Geothermal Technology 
Program, and all of this can be attainable.
  We must not turn our backs on this important source of 
environmentally friendly energy. I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment and to support geothermal technology and, more importantly, 
to support lower prices for energy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio rise in opposition 
to the amendment?
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I am going to rise to strike the required 
number of words, I guess, because I am going to accept her amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOBSON. I think this is a very responsible amendment. I happen to 
agree on geothermal, and I want to thank the Member for working with us 
to find the appropriate funding source on this, and I look forward to 
holding this as we move forward into conference.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the chairman's 
working with me on this amendment, along with our ranking member. I 
thank him for accepting the 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 California (Ms. Millender-McDonald.)
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         Clean Coal Technology


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading for 
     obligation in prior years, $257,000,000 are rescinded.

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition of interest, including 
     defeasible and equitable interests in any real property or 
     any facility or for plant or facility acquisition or 
     expansion, the hire of passenger motor vehicles, the hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft, the purchase, repair, 
     and cleaning of uniforms, the reimbursement to the General 
     Services Administration for security guard services, and for 
     conducting inquiries, technological investigations and 
     research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 
     disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social 
     and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 
     $558,204,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $54,000,000 is available to continue a multi-year project 
     coordinated with the private sector for FutureGen, without 
     regard to the terms and conditions applicable to clean coal 
     technology projects: Provided, That the initial planning and 
     research stages of the FutureGen project shall include a 
     matching requirement from non-Federal sources of at least 20 
     percent of the costs: Provided further, That any 
     demonstration component of such project shall require a 
     matching requirement from non-Federal sources of at least 50 
     percent of the costs of the component: Provided further, That 
     of the amounts provided, $36,400,000 is available, after 
     coordination with the private sector, for a request for 
     proposals for the Clean Coal Power Initiative providing for 
     competitively-awarded research, development, and 
     demonstration projects to reduce the barriers to continued 
     and expanded coal use: Provided further, That no project may 
     be selected for which sufficient funding is not available to 
     provide for the total project: Provided further, That funds 
     shall be expended in accordance with the provisions governing 
     the use of funds contained under the heading ``Clean Coal 
     Technology'' in 42 U.S.C. 5903d as well as those contained 
     under the heading ``Clean Coal Technology'' in prior 
     appropriations: Provided further, That the Department may 
     include provisions for repayment of Government contributions 
     to individual projects in an amount up to the Government 
     contribution to the project on terms and conditions that are 
     acceptable to the Department including repayments from sale 
     and licensing of technologies from both domestic and foreign 
     transactions: Provided further, That such repayments shall be 
     retained by the Department for future coal-related research, 
     development and demonstration projects: Provided further, 
     That any technology selected under this program shall be 
     considered a Clean Coal Technology, and any project selected 
     under this program shall be considered a Clean Coal 
     Technology Project, for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 7651n, and 
     chapters 51, 52, and 60 of title 40 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations: Provided further, That no part of the sum herein 
     made available shall be used for the field testing of nuclear 
     explosives in the recovery of oil and gas: Provided further,  
     That the Secretary of Energy is authorized to accept fees and 
     contributions from public and private sources, to be 
     deposited in a contributed funds account, and prosecute 
     projects using such fees and contributions in cooperation 
     with other Federal, State, or private agencies or concerns: 
     Provided further, That revenues and other moneys received by 
     or for the account of the Department of Energy or otherwise 
     generated by sale of products in connection with projects of 
     the Department appropriated under the Fossil Energy Research 
     and Development account may be retained by the Secretary of 
     Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for 
     plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
     sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing 
     contracts or agreements.

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

       For expenses necessary to carry out naval petroleum and oil 
     shale reserve activities, including the hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, $18,810,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior years shall be 
     available for all naval petroleum and oil shale reserve 
     activities.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

       For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), including the 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, the hire, maintenance, and 
     operation of aircraft, the purchase, repair, and cleaning of 
     uniforms, the reimbursement to the General Services 
     Administration for security guard services, $155,430,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

       For necessary expenses for Northeast Home Heating Oil 
     Reserve storage, operation, and management activities 
     pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 
     $4,950,000, to remain available until expended.

                   Energy Information Administration

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $89,769,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for non-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 six passenger motor vehicles, of which five 
     shall be for replacement only, $309,946,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment 
     facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial 
     actions, and other activities of title II of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and title X, subtitle A, of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 1992, $579,368,000, to be derived 
     from the Fund, to

[[Page 9474]]

     remain available until expended, of which $20,000,000 shall 
     be available in accordance with title X, subtitle A, of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 1992.

                                Science

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for science 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 facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or 
     expansion, and purchase of not to exceed twenty-five 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, 
     $4,131,710,000, to remain available until expended.

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal

       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law 
     97-425, as amended (the ``Act''), including the acquisition 
     of real property or facility construction or expansion, 
     $186,420,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $156,420,000 shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: 
     Provided, That of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Nuclear Waste Disposal, $2,000,000 shall be provided to the 
     State of Nevada solely for expenditures, other than salaries 
     and expenses of State employees, to conduct scientific 
     oversight responsibilities and participate in licensing 
     activities pursuant to the Act: Provided further, That 
     $4,000,000 shall be provided to affected units of local 
     government, as defined in the Act, to conduct appropriate 
     activities and participate in licensing activities: Provided 
     further, That 7.5 percent of the funds provided shall be made 
     available to affected units of local government in California 
     with the balance made available to affected units of local 
     government in Nevada for distribution as determined by the 
     Nevada units of local government: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding the provisions of chapters 65 and 75 of title 
     31, United States Code, the Department shall have no 
     monitoring, auditing or other oversight rights or 
     responsibilities over amounts provided to affected units of 
     local government under this heading: Provided further, That 
     the funds for the State of Nevada shall be made available 
     solely to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management by 
     direct payment and units of local government by direct 
     payment: Provided further, That within 90 days of the 
     completion of each Federal fiscal year, the Nevada Division 
     of Emergency Management and the Governor of the State of 
     Nevada shall provide certification to the Department of 
     Energy that all funds expended from such payments have been 
     expended for activities authorized by the Act and this Act: 
     Provided further, That failure to provide such certification 
     shall cause such entity to be prohibited from any further 
     funding provided for similar activities: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds herein appropriated may be: (1) used 
     directly or indirectly to influence legislative action, 
     except for normal and recognized executive-legislative 
     communications, on any matter pending before Congress or a 
     State legislature or for lobbying activity as provided in 18 
     U.S.C. 1913; (2) used for litigation expenses; or (3) used to 
     support multi-State efforts or other coalition building 
     activities inconsistent with the restrictions contained in 
     this Act: Provided further, That all proceeds and recoveries 
     realized by the Secretary in carrying out activities 
     authorized by the Act, including but not limited to, any 
     proceeds from the sale of assets, shall be available without 
     further appropriation and shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That no funds provided in this 
     Act may be used to pursue repayment or collection of funds 
     provided in any fiscal year to affected units of local 
     government for oversight activities that had been previously 
     approved by the Department of Energy, or to withhold payment 
     of any such funds.

                      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 $35,000, $278,382,000, to remain available 
     until expended, 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 $123,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2007 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 the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by 
     the amount of miscellaneous revenues received during 2007, 
     and any related appropriated receipt account balances 
     remaining from prior years' miscellaneous revenues, so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2007 appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at not more than $155,382,000.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $45,507,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                           Weapons Activities


                     (including transfer of funds)

       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; and the purchase of 
     not to exceed 14 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement 
     only, including not to exceed two buses; $6,412,001,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That $40,000,000 
     of that amount is for the Material Consolidation and Upgrade 
     Construction Project, Buildings 651 and 691, at the Idaho 
     National Laboratory.

                    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, $1,593,101,000, 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, $795,133,000, 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, $399,576,000, to remain available until expended.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

       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, $4,951,812,000, to 
     remain available until expended, and $600,000,000 for the 
     Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant at Hanford, 
     Washington, to remain available until September 30, 2007.

                        Other Defense Activities

       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 ten passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only, $720,788,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                     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, $388,080,000, 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 2007, 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

[[Page 9475]]

     pursuant to section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 
     U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southeastern power area, 
     $5,723,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $48,003,000 
     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 
     administration, $31,539,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up 
     to $13,600,000 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 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed $1,500; $212,213,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $208,776,000 shall be derived from the 
     Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That 
     of the amount herein appropriated, $6,893,000 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 of the amount herein appropriated, $6,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended on a nonreimbursable basis to the 
     Western Area Power Administration for Topock-Davis-Mead 
     Transmission Line Upgrades: Provided further, That of the 
     amount herin appropriated, $500,000 shall be available until 
     expended on a nonreimbursable basis to the Dynamic 
     Engineering Studies on the TOT-3 and Wyoming West 
     Transmission projects: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     the provision of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $472,593,000 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, $230,800,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $230,800,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and 
     other services and collections in fiscal year 2007 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 2007 so 
     as to result in a final fiscal year 2007 appropriation from 
     the general fund estimated at not more than $0.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

       Sec. 301. Contract Competition.--(a)(1) None of the funds 
     in this or any other appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007 
     or any previous fiscal year may be used to make payments for 
     a noncompetitive management and operating contract unless the 
     Secretary of Energy has published in the Federal Register and 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a written notification, with 
     respect to each such contract, of the Secretary's decision to 
     use competitive procedures for the award of the contract, or 
     to not renew the contract, when the term of the contract 
     expires.
       (2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to an extension for up to 
     2 years of a noncompetitive management and operating 
     contract, if the extension is for purposes of allowing time 
     to award competitively a new contract, to provide continuity 
     of service between contracts, or to complete a contract that 
     will not be renewed.
       (b) In this section:
       (1) The term ``noncompetitive management and operating 
     contract'' means a contract that was awarded more than 50 
     years ago without competition for the management and 
     operation of Ames Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, 
     and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
       (2) The term ``competitive procedures'' has the meaning 
     provided in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403) and includes procedures described 
     in section 303 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253) other than a procedure 
     that solicits a proposal from only one source.
       (c) For all management and operating contracts other than 
     those listed in subsection (b)(1), none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be used to award a management 
     and operating contract, or award a significant extension or 
     expansion to an existing management and operating contract, 
     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. At least 60 
     days before a contract award for which the Secretary intends 
     to grant such a waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate a report notifying the Committees 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. Workforce Restructuring.--None of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be used to--
       (1) develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan 
     that covers employees of the Department of Energy; or
       (2) provide enhanced severance payments or other benefits 
     for employees of the Department of Energy, under section 3161 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     1993 (Public Law 102-484; 42 U.S.C. 7274h).
       Sec. 303. Section 3161 Assistance.--None of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be used to augment the funds 
     made available for obligation by this Act for severance 
     payments and other benefits and community assistance grants 
     under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 42 U.S.C. 7274h) 
     unless the Department of Energy submits a reprogramming 
     request to the appropriate congressional committees.
       Sec. 304. Unfunded Requests for Proposals.--None of the 
     funds appropriated by this Act may be used to prepare or 
     initiate Requests For Proposals (RFPs) or other solicitations 
     for a program if the program has not been funded by Congress.
       Sec. 305. 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. 306. 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. 307. 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.

[[Page 9476]]

       Sec. 308. 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 2007 until the enactment of the 
     Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007.
       Sec. 309. 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.
       Sec. 310. Technology Commercialization Fund.--None of the 
     funds made available by this Act may be used for technology 
     commercialization activities funded via a tax on applied 
     energy research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
     application activities by the Department of Energy as 
     authorized by section 1001(e) of title X of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 2005.
       Sec. 311. 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.

  Mr. HOBSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of title III be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Andrews

  Mr. ANDREWS. 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. Andrews:
       Page 29, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $27,800,000)''.
       Page 31, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $27,800,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  I am pleased to offer this amendment with my friend from Iowa (Mr. 
Leach).
  On page 380 of this report, the 9/11 Commission says, ``A trained 
nuclear engineer with an amount of highly enriched uranium or 
plutonium, about the size of a grapefruit or an orange, together with 
commercially available material, could fashion a nuclear device that 
would fit into a van like the one Ramzi Yousef parked in the garage of 
the World Trade Center in 1993. Such a bomb would level lower 
Manhattan.''
  Where would people find such highly enriched uranium? Over the last 
15 years, the Department of Energy and the military have been looking 
at 106 reactors throughout the world. In those 15 years, they have 
dealt with some of them, but there are 64 of these reactors left that 
use highly enriched uranium.
  At this pace, we will have converted those reactors to less low-
enriched uranium, which cannot make a bomb, by the year 2019. We need 
to speed that up. The purpose of this amendment is to more than double 
the amount of money that is dedicated to the conversion of these 
reactors from highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium.
  Last year, the President provided about $24.7 million. Our amendment 
adds $27 million for that purpose this year. Where do we find the 
money?
  Well, this year's bill, which is a great bill, which I am going to 
support, adds about $27 million to the administrative accounts of the 
Department of Energy. So we take that $27 million increase in 
administrative costs, and we shift it towards this program of 
converting these potential nuclear bomb factories into low-enriched 
uranium.
  This does not cut the administrative expenses of the Department of 
Energy. It simply gives the Department about the same amount that it 
has, actually a tiny bit more, than it has in the present fiscal year.
  We need to prevent a nuclear 9/11. We will be able to convert about 
twice as many of these reactors from highly enriched uranium to low-
enriched uranium if we adopt the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Andrews-Leach 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman's amendment proposes to increase funding for nuclear 
nonproliferation activities that were already significantly increased 
in this bill.
  The Nonproliferation and Verifi-
cation Research and Development program budget was increased by $39 
million, an increase of 15 percent over the request. This program 
develops better technologies for satellite detection of nuclear 
activities.
  The MPC&A program was increased by $170 million, an increase of 41 
percent over the request. This program secures nuclear weapons and 
nuclear material in Russia and installs radiation detection monitors at 
border crossings around the former Soviet Union and at foreign 
seaports.
  The MegaPorts program was increased by $65 million, an increase of 
162 percent over the request. The committee recognized the need to 
protect the country's seaports against nuclear smuggling and increased 
the funding to scan cargo containers.
  The Global Threat Reduction Initiative, or GTRI, which the 
gentleman's amendment would increase funding for, was already increased 
by the committee for a total of $13 million, or 12 percent over the 
budget request. The increase was targeted to accelerate recovery of 
domestic and radiological sealed sources, Russian-origin nuclear 
material, and U.S.-origin orphaned nuclear materials still overseas.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment. We have already 
added $222 million to this account. I do not think we need to add any 
more money into this account at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons I am going to vote for 
the chairman's bill is because it has those increases, but I think we 
need to do more.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my co-author, 
my friend from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in deep respect for the subcommittee 
chairman, Mr. Hobson; and I recognize how difficult it is to establish 
budget priorities within the limits provided. Nevertheless, I think it 
is important to note that there are many lessons of 
9/11; and the one that stands out is it is relatively easy to destroy. 
A few can inflict havoc on the many with advanced economies being more 
vulnerable than less advanced ones to terrorist acts.
  Significantly, what distinguishes this generation of citizens of the 
world from all others is that we are the first generation able not only 
to cause war or inflict anarchy but to destroy civilization itself. 
Weapons of mass destruction have been invented, refined, and access 
provided to a wider and wider group of nation states and potentially to 
terrorist organizations.
  In the most profound observation of the last century, Einstein noted 
that splitting the atom had changed everything except our way of 
thinking. In this context I think there has never been a more important 
time to give threat reduction assistance and arms control a chance.
  The goals of this Global Threat Reduction Initiative includes 
securing and/or removing vulnerable, high-risk nuclear and radiological 
materials throughout the world and minimizing or eliminating the use of 
highly enriched uranium. This amendment would add $27 million to the 
program

[[Page 9477]]

and provide for acceleration of efforts to secure highly enriched 
uranium and other radiological materials. Further, it is our hope that 
this funding approach will give impetus to the effort to increase the 
number of HEU reactors being converted to low-enriched uranium.
  What is needed is increased priority to this program. If Congress can 
lead, we would, as President Eisenhower once suggested in another 
context, be dedicating some of our country's strength ``to serve the 
needs rather than the fears of mankind.''
  Mr. Chairman, I honor the subcommittee chairman. There is a great 
deal that is worthy in this bill, and I fully intend to support it. But 
I would hope this modest change in priorities could be looked at 
sympathetically by this body.
  Mr. HOBSON. I understand the gentleman's concern. Let me tell you 
this. If funds become available along the way, we will take a look at 
it. I am interested in the program, but I just think we have done an 
awful lot, probably more than this committee has done in years. Mr. 
Visclosky has been around longer than I, and Mr. Obey has always been 
interested in nonproliferation, Mr. Edwards has been interested in 
nonproliferation, and we have tried to meet those needs by the amounts 
of moneys we have put in here.
  I am sorry this does not meet the gentlemen's needs at this point, 
but if funds become available along the way and we can find them, we 
will do that.
  But at this point I would have to oppose the gentlemen's amendment 
but tell them along the way we will try to take a look at it as best we 
can.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I simply would like to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for the debate and again commend them for the increases 
they have in these accounts. I just respectfully believe we should do 
more, and I would ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. 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 Jersey 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized 
     by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as 
     amended, not withstanding 40 U.S.C. 14704, 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 5 U.S.C. 3109, and hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles, $35,472,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456, 
     section 1441, $22,260,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                        Delta Regional Authority

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Delta Regional Authority and 
     to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta 
     Regional Authority Act of 2000, as amended, notwithstanding 
     sections 382C(b)(2), 382F(d), and 382M(b) of said Act, 
     $5,940,000, 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, $7,536,000, to 
     remain available until expended, nothwithstanding the 
     limitations contained in section 306(g) of the Denali 
     Commission Act of 1998.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out 
     the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 
     amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
     including official representation expenses not to exceed 
     $19,000, $808,410,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of the amount appropriated herein, $40,981,840 
     shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided 
     further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $656,328,000 in fiscal year 2007 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 2007 so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 2007 appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $152,082,000.

                      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, as amended, $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 2007 shall be retained 
     and be available until expended, 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 
     2007 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2007 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $814,000.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical 
     Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section 
     5051, $3,670,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, 
     and to remain available until expended.

                                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, other than to communicate to 
     Members of 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.

  Mr. HOBSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 47, line 2, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


             Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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. Barton of Texas:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act from 
     the Nuclear Waste Fund may be used to carry out the Global 
     Nuclear Energy Partnership program.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, $26 billion has been collected from our Nation's 
electricity consumers to pay for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 
a repository. $8 billion of that $26 billion already has been spent, 
leaving a balance of $18 billion in Nuclear Waste Fund.
  The Department of Energy has not yet proposed to use this fund for 
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, but they do believe that they 
have the authority under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act subject to 
appropriations. I strongly disagree with that interpretation.

[[Page 9478]]

  Consumers have paid for nuclear waste to be disposed of in a 
repository that should have been opened in 1998, 8 years ago. What they 
have not paid for is a program to encourage the development of nuclear 
energy in other countries, and they have not paid for a program to 
dispose of those other countries' spent fuel.
  My amendment would simply prohibit the Department of Energy from 
looting the Nuclear Waste Fund for the Global Nuclear Energy 
Partnership, a program that is overly broad, premature and poorly 
defined. This money should be reserved for its designated purpose.
  If DOE wants to encourage the development of nuclear energy, then it 
is time to focus here at home. It is time to get Yucca Mountain open, 
so new nuclear plants can be built in our own country.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is my 
understanding that Mr. Dingell supports the amendment. It is also my 
understanding that the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee 
before us, Mr. Hobson, supports the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment from the chairman 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee. As you know, our bill does not 
use the Nuclear Waste Fund for any activities under the Global Nuclear 
Energy Partnership. Your amendment is entirely consistent with the 
views of our committee and its uses of the waste fund, and I encourage 
Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment 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 offered by Ms. Berkley:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
     Management to administer the ``Yucca Mountain Youth Zone'' 
     website.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my colleagues and the 
American people to the newest member of the Bush administration's 
energy policy team. His name is Yucca Mountain Johnny. He is the star 
of the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain Youth Zone Web site devoted 
to brainwashing school children into believing that burying the 
Nation's nuclear garbage 90 miles from Los Vegas is safe. The Web site 
features helpful facts on nuclear waste, as well as games and 
activities to make high level nuclear waste fun.
  High level nuclear waste is not fun. It is dangerous, and the 
Department of Energy should not be using taxpayer money to politicize 
this issue or to use the DOE Web site designed to attract children as a 
propaganda tool.
  Yucca Mountain Johnny is full of advice for America's youth. Among 
his witty sayings, he says, ``The worst mistake is never making one.''
  Well, Yucca Mountain is a mistake. This Web site is a mistake. Yucca 
Mountain Johnny, with all due respect, is a mistake, and to promote the 
proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to our Nation's 
children under the guise of education is a big mistake.
  What is next, I ask my colleagues? Will the Department of Health and 
Human Services recruit Joe Camel to teach our children that smoking and 
tobacco is good for them? This is no less egregious.
  Whether you are pro-Yucca or anti-Yucca, I hope that we are all pro-
children. As a parent, I am imploring my colleagues to let us not allow 
the DOE to use a cartoon character to persuade our children that 
nuclear waste is safe and good for you. It is not. This is wrong. This 
Web site is wrong. Yucca Mountain Johnny is very wrong.
  My amendment would prohibit the Department of Energy from maintaining 
a Web site whose purpose is the indoctrination of our children by the 
nuclear industry, the Department of Energy and other proponents of 
Yucca Mountain.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I cannot imagine how 
anybody could think Yucca Mountain Johnny is good for our school 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment also. It is 
obvious that people can have different opinions about projects, and the 
gentlelady from Nevada certainly has the right to have a difference of 
opinion about whether there should be a Yucca Mountain repository at 
all. I respect her opinion.
  Having said that, I don't think there is any question that we should 
allow the Department of Energy to educate on just what that repository 
would be if it were in operation. They have put up a Web site for 
children, and they have got some diagrams and some information on it 
that is of a very simple nature, but to my knowledge, nobody has 
questioned the accuracy or truth of what is on the Web site.
  So to say we are just not going to allow the Department of Energy to 
have an educational Web site for the children in Nevada, or any other 
area that wishes to find out, my guess is that most of the children 
that access this use it for term papers and papers in their classrooms 
that they have to do on nuclear power.
  So I would hope we would oppose the gentlewoman's amendment and let 
the Department of Energy continue its educational program. Whether you 
oppose or support the repository, we should at least want the facts out 
to our children and adults who wish to use that same Web site about 
just what exactly it is.
  So I oppose the amendment.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would probably not be as upset with Joe Camel, excuse 
me, Yucca Mountain Johnny, if there was a more balanced approach on 
this Web site. It doesn't talk about the risks of transporting nuclear 
waste through 43 States. It doesn't talk about the potential of 
accidents or being an inviting target for terrorists. It doesn't talk 
about the fact that Yucca Mountain is in a volcanic and seismic zone 
area. It doesn't talk about the chronic mismanagement of the project by 
the DOE. It doesn't talk about what was contained in the e-mails that 
said they were ``making up the science,'' ``making up the stuff.'' It 
doesn't say anything about the existence of safer and cheaper 
alternatives.
  What it does do, some of the pithy sayings, and I can't imagine 
anybody doing a term paper on this one, ``Think safe, be safe.'' 
``Change your attitude and you change the world.'' ``Any idea is worth 
having.'' ``The best sense for safety is common sense.''
  Now, quite candidly, I don't know what the schools are like in your 
State, but in the State of Nevada, that is not term paper material.
  So this is just used for the sole purpose, and this cartoon character 
was created with taxpayer money, taxpayer money, to convince elementary 
school children that nuclear waste is a good thing. Why would we want 
to do this? Why would we use one penny of taxpayer money on Yucca 
Mountain Johnny? Have we nothing better to do with our resources in 
this Nation?

[[Page 9479]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We talked about 
it, and we are on very different sides of this issue.
  One of the reasons I am upset about some other things out here is I 
don't want to build seven or eight Yucca Mountains, and we differ on 
that, and I don't want to put perfectly good rods into Yucca Mountain. 
I want to go through GNEP and some other things. And maybe someday, if 
we were really lucky, we wouldn't have to put anything there. But I 
assume that we will probably have to do some things, certainly with the 
Naval reactor stuff.
  But I think education is one of the most important things we can do. 
I think one of the things we ought to work on is maybe we need to look 
at this Web site and have some other types of things and some more 
balance to it. I happen to think that the best cure for fear is 
knowledge, and I don't happen to agree with some of the things that you 
are causing fear about what is going on at Yucca Mountain, and we may 
disagree about that.
  But if we could have a more balanced approach, I still think Yucca 
Mountain Johnny may have a place in teaching kids. We may differ on 
where that place is. But I think, in the long run, education, good 
education is a way to go. So I would encourage the gentlelady to try to 
work with us and maybe with the Department to get a better and less 
cutesy sort of thing going and educating people, especially young 
people, about Yucca Mountain and the responsible use of green fuel in 
this country.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't believe I said anything about fear. This is not 
about fear or creating fear. This is about using taxpayer dollars for a 
cartoon character when we have better things to do with our money.
  It doesn't matter to me if you are pro-Yucca or anti-Yucca, this is 
not a good expenditure of our taxpayers' dollars, and we shouldn't be 
using our children as propaganda tools. This is not Communist Russia. 
The last time I looked, this is the United States of America.
  If you will let me redesign this Web site, I might be a little bit 
more interested in Yucca Mountain Johnny. Right now, just his name is 
an offense to the people of the State of Nevada.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1730

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. BERKLEY. 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 Nevada 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

  Mr. MARKEY. 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. Markey:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out subtitle J of title IX of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16371 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, believe it or not, in this budget there is $50 million 
to help the oil industry figure out how to do ultra-deep drilling for 
oil.
  Now, the Republicans here in Congress do this despite the fact that 
President Bush says this on the program, ``I will tell you, with $55-a-
barrel oil, we do not need incentives to oil and gas companies to 
explore.''
  It is now $70 a barrel. The President has asked us to take out the 
money. It is ultimately a $500 million 10-year project. The only ultra-
deep drilling that is going on here is in the pockets of American 
taxpayers by oil companies which have reported $110 billion worth of 
profit in the last year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey 
amendment.
  This Ultra-Deep Program was authorized by the Energy Policy Act last 
summer, had bipartisan support. The Ultra-Deep is a research program 
that universities and independents and various national laboratories 
would participate in. This is to try to find the technology to allow us 
to go into waters primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, very deep waters, to 
develop the technology so that we can go in and drill in an 
environmentally safe fashion and recover what are estimated to be 
almost 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and almost 1 billion 
barrels of oil.
  It is primarily a research program. It is authorized at $50 million 
for 10 years, or a total of $500 million. This money would go to 
universities like the University of Texas, Texas A&M, in my great 
State, Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Massachusetts, in 
consortium with our national laboratories and the smaller independent 
oil and gas companies to develop technology in an environmentally safe 
fashion to develop those necessary resources for our energy future.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Markey amendment.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to read to the Members who are paying 
attention what President Bush has said to us this year, just a couple 
of months ago. Here is what he says. He says, ``In the 2007 budget, we 
recommend repealing provisions of the Energy Policy Act for a new 
mandatory $50 million per year oil and gas R&D program funded with 
Federal revenues from oil and gas leases which would be similar to the 
discretionary programs proposed for termination. Industry has the 
incentives and the resources to do such research and development on its 
own.''
  That is from President Bush and Dick Cheney to us on the floor.
  We do not need this $500 million program. Mom and pop companies do 
not go out into deep water. The companies that are going out there are 
ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Conoco, Marathon. We do not have to subsidize 
these oil companies. They are already tipping the American consumer 
upside down and shaking money out of their pockets at the pump every 
single day.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, of course, to the 
Markey amendment that would repeal funding for DOE's administration of 
the Ultra-Deep Water and Unconventional Natural Gas Program.
  Mr. Markey is just absolutely dead wrong when he describes this 
ultra-deep is a program for big energy, big energy companies, 
ExxonMobil and all of those. Actually, ExxonMobil is not even a member 
of the consortium that was selected to oversee the Ultra-Deep Program.
  To call a Federal R&D program a subsidy is like calling public 
education a social giveaway. The Ultra-Deep Program is about American 
energy for the

[[Page 9480]]

American people, for the American young people, young people that will 
have to fight a war if we do not have energy for them. Countries will 
fight for energy. This country will fight for energy.
  We do not have to, because 55 years of natural gas awaits us in the 
gulf. But we have to have this amendment to get it. The Ultra-Deep 
Program is about American energy. Nineteen of the 84 members of the 
consortium are universities, not Big Oil.
  If Mr. Markey looks closely enough, he will find that one of those 
universities is his own Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Even 
more than the universities, the American people are beneficiaries of 
the Ultra-Deep Program.
  First, the American people benefit because the intellectual property 
developed from the Ultra-Deep Program will belong to all of the 
American people, not any one company and not Big Oil.
  Second, the American people will benefit because it helps get the 
country off foreign sources of oil and gas. The Energy Information 
Administration estimates that the Ultra-Deep Program will increase our 
domestic oil production by 50 million barrels of oil and 3.8 million 
cubic feet of natural gas.
  Big Oil left us and went to produce in countries like Venezuela and 
Nigeria. The businesses that will be able to use the ultra-deep 
technologies are the little independent oil and gas companies that do 
not have the funds for huge R&D programs, not Big Oil.
  It seems to be a little-known fact to Mr. Markey that these little 
independents are the companies that produce 68 percent of the net 
domestic oil and 82 percent of the domestic natural gas, not Big Oil. 
We need to help these producers get more.
  Lastly, I want to emphasize that the Ultra-Deep Program is one of the 
few R&D programs that pays for itself. The money for the Ultra-Deep 
Program comes from royalty revenue that the oil and gas companies have 
to pay for it.
  The energy is there. We know that. We have studies that show it is 
there. With this program, we can get it up.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, you know, I am like a referee at an intramural 
Republican fight here. And so I am just trying to ref it so that you 
can understand what is going on.
  The President and the Vice President have asked for this huge subsidy 
to huge oil companies to be taken out. He is kind of being a free 
marketeer here. Well, the Republican leadership here is saying, no, we 
want to give another half a billion dollars to companies that are now 
charging $3 a gallon for gasoline, made $114 billion last year and, in 
the President's own words, do not need this subsidy.
  So it is free marketeers versus subsidizers, but it is an intramural 
slaughter inside the Republican Party. And which of the companies are 
going to be the beneficiaries in this partnership to secure energy for 
America? The names are Chevron, Halliburton, BP, Marathon Oil, Kerr-
McGee and others.
  And this is Dick Cheney and George Bush saying take the money out. 
But yet they continue to commit to these subsidies from the taxpayer 
even as the companies report huge profits.
  Mrs. EMERSON. How much time do we have remaining on our side?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Missouri 
will control the time originally claimed by the gentleman from Ohio.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Missouri has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to listen to the 
discussion by the gentleman from Massachusetts describing himself as a 
referee.
  Now he was showing the American taxpayer held by their feet shaking 
the money out of their pockets. The truth is that this program is 
actually funded by revenue from taxes on oil and gas production, and 
that is it.
  So, first of all, the money for the program comes directly from oil 
and gas companies. But then the big beneficiary is, the money that is 
being poured into the pockets of the taxpayers, $15 million was used 
previously by universities to study coal bed methane gas. This last 
year, 2005, $327 million came into the budget from that $15 million 
dollar budget, and every year we are increasing the production of coal 
bed methane gas.
  The beneficiaries are not Texaco, Chevron. They are not ExxonMobil. 
The beneficiaries are MIT, Stanford, Penn State, and a whole plethora 
of other research institutions.
  This makes sense to lower the costs of energy to our American 
consumers. One party is in favor of that. The referee stands here 
trying to block the American people from having lower energy prices. 
That is a very simple fight to referee, my friend.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I am so sorry that President Bush cannot be here on the 
House floor, but under separation of power, he just cannot be here.
  I would just like to reference for the Republicans on this side what 
the President has said on this issue. ``I will tell you, with $55-a-
barrel oil, we do not need incentives for oil and gas companies to 
explore.''
  That is President Bush talking to the Republicans in Congress.
  You do not have to tell me that. I already believed that. But he is 
on my side of the debate now.
  So the point that we are making is quite clear that, yes, the money 
comes from the oil companies, but the money comes from oil companies 
because they have to pay the public for the leases on public land. So 
the public gets the money.
  But then what this bill does is then it takes the money back out of 
the taxpayers' pockets and it hands it back over to the oil companies 
who have already been in the other pocket of the consumer, tipping them 
upside down and taking it out of $3 a gallon.
  So this is basically the bonus for one oil executive for a couple of 
years. I mean, that is where they can get the money from if this is 
such a valuable project.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers at this time 
and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this amendment is nothing 
more nor less than an attempt to be fair to the American taxpayer. They 
are howling at the pumps. They feel like they are getting stuck up at 
the gas stations. They are paying too much. They are being ripped off.
  And this just adds insult to energy by having the oil companies then 
come to Congress and saying, now you do the research for us. You pay us 
to go out and drill for more oil. We will then charge you $3.50, $4 a 
gallon for it. It just makes no sense.
  President Bush and Dick Cheney want this amendment to pass. Vote 
``aye'' on the Markey 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. 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 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Visclosky

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) 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. Visclosky:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:

[[Page 9481]]

       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in contravention of the Federal buildings 
     performance and reporting requirements of Executive Order 
     13123, part 3 of title V of the National Energy Conservation 
     Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8251 et seq.), or subtitle A of title I 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (including the amendments 
     made thereby).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. 
Gordon's entire statement be entered into the Congressional Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would yield a portion of my time to the chairman of 
the committee.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment that is being 
offered by Mr. Gordon.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman's observation.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, despite the high cost of energy and 
existing laws enforcing conservation, Federal agencies still do not 
give energy efficiency a priority and continually fall short of meeting 
their requirements.
  Our estimates are that the Federal Government wasted almost half a 
billion dollars in the last 2 years by not meeting its requirements--or 
roughly equivalent to 8,200 barrels of oil every day--a total of 6 
million barrels over the last 2 years.
  This happens because the laws already on the books are not taken 
seriously enough. The National Energy Conservation Policy Act--NECPA, 
last year's Energy Bill--EPACT, and a related Executive order all 
clearly state that agencies shall meet aggressive but reasonable energy 
efficiency goals and standards and to prepare reports to the Department 
of Energy, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress and on 
the agencies' performance. Yet the Federal regulations that govern new 
building construction are 17 years out of date and the reports reach 
the Congress months or years after the data is available.
  The amendment I am offering today would increase the incentive for 
agencies receiving appropriations under the Agriculture appropriations 
bill to comply with the law by tying Federal buildings performance to 
appropriations.
  This amendment simply states that none of the funds made available by 
this act shall be used in contravention of Federal buildings 
performance requirements. Therefore, agencies must adhere to existing 
law when constructing, leasing or refurbishing any building with money 
appropriated under this act.
  These relatively simple steps in designing new buildings in 
conformance with current law, measuring building performance, and 
procurement of energy efficient products will contribute to substantial 
energy savings in the Federal sector--lessons that have already been 
learned outside the Federal Government.
  Increased energy conservation in the Federal sector means cleaner 
air, cleaner water, and in a time of soaring energy costs, keeping 
money in taxpayers' pockets.
  How can we expect consumers and industry to make sacrifices and 
commit to energy conservation when the Federal Government fails to make 
it a priority for itself?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the 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 Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. 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. King of Iowa:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the Corps of Engineers to implement the Spring 
     Rise, also known as the bimodal spring pulse releases, on the 
     Missouri River.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I bring before the House today 
deals with the Missouri River and the flows on the Missouri River that 
are controlled by the Corps of Engineers in a series of dams that start 
at Gavins Point Dam in southeast South Dakota and move clear on up into 
Montana.
  It has been a struggle along this river for the last several years 
because there has been a drought upstream for the last 7 to 8 years. 
And the struggle over the water is something that many people, at least 
west of Mississippi, are familiar with.
  This is centered upon an endangered species, an endangered species 
called the pallid sturgeon. Fish and Wildlife and a number of 
environmental groups working in conjunction with the Corps of Engineers 
have come up with this grand experiment. It is this experiment that the 
idea that the natural spawning of the pallid sturgeon could be enhanced 
if they created a manmade flood, a ``spring rise'' as they call it.
  Now, there is not a basis in science for this that we identify, and 
we have had some hearings on it. It is the belief that if you have the 
water come up in the spring, that it somehow triggers a spawning cue, 
but in fact, rather than emptying the dams out upstream and starving 
the reservoirs up there of water and flushing out the river and 
flooding our farmers in especially southwest Iowa and down into 
Missouri, we have also had those similar circumstances that have taken 
place repeatedly naturally because of the tributaries that produce this 
spring rise.
  So there is not a basis in science for it, and my amendment removes 
any funding to be used to create a spring rise until such time as there 
would be a sound science to establish that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment reduces the funding for the O and M account. This 
account is already a backlog of critical activities to ensure the 
safety and operation of existing programs. The amendment places our 
water resources infrastructure at further risk, and I oppose the 
amendment and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I make the point that this is of critical economic 
interest to the Missouri River bottoms all the way from Sioux City, 
Iowa, clear on down to St. Louis, particularly the people on the 
Missouri side. When we have a manmade flood, there is not crop 
insurance that will protect for a manmade flood. And yet we have a 
government-induced manmade flood that is being created as an 
environmental experiment, and that environmental experiment is just 
that, an experiment. And so I seek to protect our producers.
  The reason that the project was put in place is so that we could have 
flood protection, navigation and open up the economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I misspoke a little earlier on this amendment. And I will issue a 
statement correcting the first part that I misspoke before.
  This activity is part of a biological opinion under the Endangered 
Species Act. It is not appropriate to legislate this activity on the 
energy and water development bill.
  I would really prefer that my colleague would withdraw the amendment. 
Failing that, I would oppose the amendment and ask my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''

[[Page 9482]]

  This is not the appropriate forum for this piece of legislation. I 
understand the gentleman's concern.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I want to thank the chairman for his work on this overall bill and 
his interest on a broad variety of issues all across this country and 
his cooperation that I have enjoyed and appreciated the years I have 
served in this Congress.
  I am sensitive to the chairman's judgment on this issue because he 
has to look at the Nation as a whole, and I have to represent my 
district. And that is our issue that is here. It is not really even a 
philosophical disagreement. I take the opportunity to present this 
species. I happen to have probably the only one in Washington, D.C., a 
pallid sturgeon in captivity. Actually, it is legal in my possession. I 
want to pass this down to the chairman for his observation at a 
convenient point if I could.
  I want to make a closing point that when we let ideas that are not 
sound science dictate the economy in this country, especially when we 
have the billions of dollars invested for those reasons in the Missouri 
drainage area as I said, that is for flood control and also for barge 
freight and then for the economy on up the river. And the last reason 
is the one that they are using to date, the belief that we can flood 
the river and flood the backwaters, and that is the spawning areas. And 
then we can have another flood and go out and round them back up again, 
even though those circumstances have been established there in nature, 
and it does not pay for us then to make a false flood to try to emulate 
what has already happened in nature, believing that something different 
is going to happen, the spawning has not taken place.
  I would point out that we do have hatcheries up and down the river. I 
visited one of those hatcheries, which is where this sample species 
came from, and in those hatcheries, we were able to take 250,000 eggs 
and fertilize those eggs and have a 95 percent success rate of 
releasing live and healthy pallid sturgeons into the river. And we are 
very close to producing the second generation. We have made a lot of 
progress. And I think we are going to be able to save this species, and 
we can save the endangered species which is the river bottom farmer if 
we use good judgment.
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. King's 
amendment.
  As many of you know, earlier this month the Army Corps of Engineers 
decided to move forward with a spring rise on the Missouri River. I 
continue to remain strongly opposed to this policy because it 
significantly raises the chances of something adverse happening to the 
over 1 million Missourians that live along the river's flood plain.
  Mr. Chairman, the spring rise is a huge gamble. We are gambling with 
the livelihoods of all the farmers, landowners, homeowners, and 
merchants along the river. All for what? To maybe trigger the spawning 
patterns of the pallid sturgeon. This is a risky science experiment to 
me, and I will continue to fight against this and future spring rises.
  It's the farmer that we need to protect. I wish to remind this body 
how important farmers are to us three times a day when we eat. A spring 
rise substantially increases the chances of down river flooding and we 
cannot risk that potential damage to our agricultural community. 
Farmers play a critical role in America and to the countless countries 
that rely on them to feed their populations. We must protect our 
farmers and their livelihoods before we consider this unfounded 
experiment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and encourage its 
passage.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak

  Mr. STUPAK. 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. Stupak:
       Page 47, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement a policy, proposed on pages V-5 and V-6 
     of the US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Direct Program: 
     Program Development Guidance for Fiscal Year 2007 (Circular 
     No. 11-2-187), to use or consider the amount of tonnage of 
     goods that pass through a harbor to determine if a harbor is 
     high-use.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, beginning in fiscal year 2005, the United States Army 
Corps of Engineers and the Office of Management and Budget began 
implementing new guidelines for including in their budget for operation 
and maintenance dredging of commercial harbors. Unfortunately, this new 
policy significantly limits dredging of harbors in rural communities 
including several communities in my northern Michigan district.
  In fiscal year 2006, the corps excluded harbors that moved less than 
a million tons of cargo each year. For fiscal year 2007, the corps is 
using a similar tonnage base standard, requiring that dredging projects 
cost less than $2 per ton of product moved annually.
  By using a standard based on tonnage, harbors that do not move a 
large amount of tonnage but are still important to the economic success 
of rural areas are excluded from the President's budget. As a result, a 
number of routine Army Corps harbor dredging projects across the 
country will not be carried out.
  In fiscal year 2006, there were 293 harbors in the United States 
classified as low use. These harbors were not included in the corps 
budget, even though they have been in previous years, simply because of 
this unfair budget standard; 293 communities are impacted by this 
devastating new policy. An example of how this policy affects 
communities in my district, Ontonagan, Michigan, residents were taken 
by surprise when last year, for the first time in many years, the 
harbor was not included in the President's budget. Not dredging this 
harbor will have significant effect on the future of our paper company, 
Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, which relies on the harbor for 
coal and limestone deliveries. White pine power, a revitalized coal 
plant that depends on the harbor for coal deliveries for power 
generation in an area that is underserved with electricity will also be 
jeopardized.
  In addition, annual dredging helps prevent flooding in Ontonagon, 
helping to prevent the devastating private property loss and damage.
  While this port does not meet the corps' new standard, dredging plays 
an essential role in preserving the economy, electric generation and 
protecting this community; 293 communities in the United States have 
similar concerns.
  This policy is not just detrimental to these rural communities. In 
setting this policy, the corps also disregards the fact that 
approximately two-thirds of all shipping in the United States either 
starts or finishes at small ports. By ignoring the needs of these 
communities, the corps is also significantly harming the Nation's 
economy.
  The House is on record that the corps' neglect of our rural harbors 
is unwise and unreasonable. During consideration of the Water Resources 
Development Act last July, my amendment to require the corps to fund 
harbor dredging projects based on standards used in fiscal year 2004 
was included in the WRDA bill. While the WRDA bill is unfortunately 
being held up in the Senate, this policy continues to threaten the 
economies of those cities that depend on these ports.
  Therefore, if I may enter into a brief colloquy with the chairman, 
does the chairman of the subcommittee share

[[Page 9483]]

my concerns that the corps' new dredging policy is misguided and harms 
our rural economies?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. Yes, generally, I do.
  Mr. STUPAK. Reclaiming my time, with that regard I will be 
withdrawing my amendment. I would also thank both the chairman, Mr. 
Hobson, and the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for their support on 
this issue. Hopefully, we will be able to pass a WRDA bill and go to 
conference and have it pass this year so the language that we are 
looking for will be included. I look forward to working with the 
committee and these gentlemen on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The 
gentleman from Michigan is correct to bring this issue up. The 
regulations that determine dredging in the Great Lakes need to be 
updated and reflect the true economic value that they produce.
  The Great Lakes are the fourth sea coast of this Nation and home to 
the U.S. Flag fleet and the Canadian Flag fleet. In addition, dozens of 
international vessels regularly travel through the Great Lakes, 
visiting port communities along the way. These vessels team up to haul 
upwards of 125 million tons of cargo during a typical 10-month shipping 
season. That is almost a half of ton for every person in the United 
States of America. I truly thank the gentleman for highlighting this 
inequity and certainly assure him that we will continue to work closely 
with the chairman to rectify this problem.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment based upon the colloquy and comments here today.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.


              Amendment 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 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 today, 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 yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, first, let me start by thanking my colleague and friend 
from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, for co-sponsoring this amendment and for 
her leadership in the effort to protect the splendor of Long Island 
Sound.
  Our amendment limits the use of any funds appropriated in this bill 
for use by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review the 
pending application for the placement of a floating storage and 
regasification unit known as Broadwater in the middle of Long Island 
Sound, an area that was designated by the Environmental Protection 
Agency as an estuary of national significance.

                              {time}  1800

  To be clear, the amendment does not block any other pending 
application before the FERC relating to the placement of onshore and 
offshore liquefied natural gas projects around the country. Rather, it 
is intended to protect the splendor of Long Island Sound as we expand 
our energy independence.
  Like my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I believe that it is 
in the best interest of our Nation to develop new and innovative 
technologies, expand refining capacity and increase the supply of 
natural gas. However, we must strike a responsible balance between 
expanding the supply of energy and protecting the environment.
  Long Island Sound has benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars 
invested by the Federal Government, the States of New York and 
Connecticut, as well as local towns and municipalities fighting to curb 
hypoxia, brown tide and other destructive pollutants which decimated 
our fishing and shell fishing industries and set back the regional 
economies.
  Today, Long Island Sound generates $5 billion annually for the 
regional economy from commercial and pleasure boating, commercial and 
sport fishing and other forms of tourism. It should be easy to 
understand why it is imperative to preserve this flourishing economy 
and the splendor of its environment for the benefit of over 10 million 
people who live within the Long Island Sound watershed alone.
  Placing a floating terminal in this location threatens to jeopardize 
its precious ecosystem, the regional economy and the delicate balance 
between environmental preservation and energy independence that we have 
worked so hard to achieve.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is not intended to weaken the case for 
expanding our supply of natural gas. My amendment is about making sure 
that we don't lose sight of our environmental goals or allow 
preservation and conservation to take a back seat in the rush to 
formulate a more effective and less expensive energy policy.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment and work with me to make sure that we satisfy our energy 
needs while preserving the integrity of our natural resources.
  Let me close by thanking Chairman Hobson for his continued support 
for Brookhaven National Laboratory, which is in my district. Thanks to 
his continued support and leadership, along with the ranking member, 
the scientific research funded in this bill will go a long way to 
advance our Nation's technological edge and competitiveness.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman from Ohio is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this 
amendment. The Energy Policy Act that we voted on in a bipartisan 
fashion last summer on this very floor changed the way that we have to 
permit our liquefied natural gas facilities and has given the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission the authority, working with the States, to 
have the say in where to put these LNG facilities.
  This particular facility is a facility that would be located in the 
Northeast, offshore, in a remote area. It is the only proposal of its 
type that is currently before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 
If we adopt this amendment, it would preclude the FERC from even 
reviewing the application.
  Now, the Northeast part of the United States needs energy. This 
particular facility, if permitted and if operated and if operated to 
maximum capacity, could supply up to 25 percent of the entire needs of 
the Northeastern United States in terms of their natural gas usage.
  To adopt this amendment right now simply says to that part of the 
country, We don't want any more energy.
  Mr. Markey of Massachusetts offered an amendment in committee to the 
bill, the energy bill that is now the law that says LNG facilities have 
to be located in remote areas. This facility would be located offshore 
in a remote area. If we are going to say no to this, we just might as 
well say we don't want any more facilities in the Northeast. I don't 
know how they are going to get energy, but if they can't get it from 
LNG and they can't get it from pipelines and they can't it from 
drilling and they can't get it from any other area, how are they going 
to get it?

[[Page 9484]]

  I strongly oppose this amendment. Let's at least let the FERC review 
the application. If they decide that it shouldn't be permitted, so be 
it. But let's at least let them look at the application.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. May I inquire as to how much time I have 
left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. If I may quickly respond to my friend from 
Texas. He characterizes the Long Island Sound as a remote area. That is 
incorrect. There are approximately 10 million people who live within a 
50-mile radius of the Long Island Sound. I don't think that would fall 
within any reasonable description of a remote area.
  Secondly, the Energy Policy Act which my friend from Texas cites 
strips local government of the right to have a say in whether or not we 
site facilities of this type within areas. This is an effort on our 
part to assert some local control. Every elected official on both sides 
of the aisle that has responsibility for this region opposes this 
facility, as does the vast majority of the population.
  With that, I would like to yield 
the balance of my time to my friend from Connecticut, Congresswoman 
DeLauro.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman and applaud his leadership.
  Remote areas, 11 miles off the coast of Connecticut, 9 miles off the 
coast of New York. The LNG Broadwater facility, actually, the proposal, 
is a vessel roughly the size of the Queen Mary. One week after passing 
the interior bill which dedicated $1.8 million to cleaning up the Long 
Island Sound, we are now going to place this vessel in the Long Island 
Sound. Also, a 25-mile pipeline through the middle of what is prime 
ground for lobstering and for fishing. Further, the entrance to the 
sound might need to be temporarily closed when the LNG shipments arrive 
every few days, disrupting all other commerce that uses that passage.
  We are going to ask the Coast Guard to enforce the zone. They are 
already stretched thin, but they are going to have to patrol the LNG 
site, which will pose a new security risk.
  I will conclude by saying to you that we voted to protect the Long 
Island Sound and, without this amendment, who knows what other 
estuaries of national significance will be at risk of becoming our next 
industrial zone.
  Support the Bishop amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has 
expired.
  Mr. HOBSON. May I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) for his nice 
comments, but, unfortunately, I have to oppose his amendment at this 
time.
  This amendment, the problem that I have, and I understand your 
concern, but this would preclude FERC from going forward with its 
review of the Broadwater Liquefied Natural Gas project on Long Island. 
This proposed project is the only floating storage and regasification 
unit that is pending before the commission. This amendment undos the 
Natural Gas Act for orderly review and decision-making process for 
energy infrastructure and limits energy development efforts. Further, 
the amendment restricts the ability of any company to use a fairly 
novel technological approach to siting LNG away from populated areas.
  I understand that 9 miles to you is not very far and 11 miles is not 
far to you. But I think that is what we have this system for, is to 
allow the system to be fairly looked at and make a determination if 
they agree. Frankly, all FERC authorizations are still subject to 
judicial review.
  I understand the concerns that people have here. There is always the 
NIMB effect in everything as we look around, and I understand that. But 
I think the best course of action is allow FERC to consider the 
application and consider public comments, issue the orders that are 
best in the public interest, and if people disagree with that, there 
are still courses open to them. But to start this sort of process in 
this bill, I think, is inappropriate.
  I would have to oppose the amendment at this time.
  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.
  Mr. HOBSON. 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. 
Latham) having assumed the chair, Mr. McHugh, 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. 5427) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________