[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16252-16267]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2008

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project


                Central Utah Project Completion Account

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah 
     Project Completion Act (titles II through VI of Public Law 
     102-575), $41,380,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $976,000 shall be deposited into the Utah Reclamation 
     Mitigation and Conservation Account for use by the Utah 
     Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.
       In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying 
     out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the 
     Interior, $1,620,000, to remain available until expended.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

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


                      Water and Related Resources

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For management, development, and restoration of water and 
     related natural resources and for related activities, 
     including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 
     reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling 
     related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and 
     related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with, 
     State and local governments, federally recognized Indian 
     tribes, and others, $871,197,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $57,615,000 shall be available for 
     transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 
     $26,825,000 shall be available for transfer to the Lower 
     Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which such amounts 
     as may be necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam 
     Fund; of which not more than $500,000 is for high priority 
     projects which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation 
     Corps, as authorized by section 106 of Public Law 91-378 (16 
     U.S.C. 1706): Provided, That such transfers may be increased 
     or decreased within the overall appropriation under this 
     heading: Provided further, That of the total appropriated, 
     the amount for program activities that can be financed by the 
     Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of Reclamation special fee 
     account established by section 4(i) of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)) shall be 
     derived from that Fund or account: Provided further, That 
     funds contributed under the Act of March 4, 1921 (43 U.S.C. 
     395) are available until expended for the purposes for which 
     contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced under the 
     Act of January 12, 1927 (43 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.

[[Page 16253]]




               Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

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

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       Page 11, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $55,000,000)''.

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment, as some previous 
amendments have, attempts to make a very, very modest step towards 
saving the family budget from the single largest tax increase in 
American history.
  Specifically, over the requested level or the level in the bill, this 
would reduce funding for Interior's Water and Related Resources account 
to the President's request from roughly $871 million to $816 million, 
representing a $55 million savings to the American taxpayer. This 
account has been a traditionally earmarked account for certain water 
restoration activities in 17 Western States.
  The bill's current funding level represents a 6.7 percent increase 
over the President's request. Again, I am sure this account funds many 
worthy projects.
  But we need, I believe, a number of us believe we need a road map to 
try to bring fiscal sanity to the House in an appropriations bill that 
is already increasing spending twice the rate of inflation. So now we 
are having a debate over $816 million, as proposed by the 
administration, which I am sure many in this body might think is an 
overly large number when we recognize that money is coming from 
hardworking American taxpayers, but a difference of $816 million versus 
$871 million.
  Again, as the majority in their budget resolution enacts the single 
largest tax increase in American history, they are asking American 
families to somehow do more with less. Don't we believe that the 
Federal Government ought to try to do more with less, and, in this 
case, we still have an increase, 6.7 percent increase over the 
President's request.
  As I have taken to the floor on other occasions during this debate, 
we should never, ever forget that although something good can be done 
with the taxpayers' dollars in this account, I have no doubt, we have 
to remember the hardworking American families back home and how the 
single largest tax increase in history, which is funding this third 
appropriation bill, still twice the rate of inflation, we have to 
remember, we have to remember how this bill impacts them.
  I sent out a letter to my constituents asking them how this tax 
increase of the Democrat majority would impact them.

                              {time}  1430

  I heard from Bruce in Garland. Garland's a city in my district. He 
said, ``In my particular case, an additional $2,200 in taxes would cut 
into the finances I used to pay for my son's college education. A 
control and reduction of spending is what is needed.''
  Again, Mr. Chairman, what we realize is as we plus-up some Federal 
account, we are downsizing some family account. In this case, we're 
affecting a family's education account.
  I heard from Joy in the city of Dallas. I represent the eastern part 
of the city of Dallas. She writes, ``I could not pay for a semester of 
college for my daughter if I had to send more money to the 
government.''
  So as this account's getting plussed up by twice the rate of 
inflation, here are two individual families, just two out of millions 
across America, who are having their education accounts gutted by the 
plus-up in this particular bill.
  I heard from Linda, also from the city of Garland. ``If we had to pay 
an additional $2,200 each year, it would make us have to decide between 
food or medicine.''
  I've got a whole host of these letters, Mr. Chairman, to remind every 
Member in this body that as we talk about all the noble purposes we 
have for the American taxpayers' money, they too have noble purposes. 
They have health care programs in their family, they have education 
programs in their family, they have energy bills and programs in their 
family, paying their heating bills, their cooling bills, filling up 
their automobile. So certainly we could take one modest step in saving 
the taxpayer $55 million and plus-up the water and related resources 
account, a traditionally earmarked account. And we had a very vigorous 
debate over earmarks here recently, their transparency, their 
accountability.
  But surely we could agree to hold to the President's level and try to 
save the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, the 
water and related resources account funds Reclamation's core missions 
of delivering water to citizens of this country, to those who till the 
soil in our country, and for generating hydropower.
  Given the growing need for water supplies in the 17 Western States of 
this country, I certainly believe it is critical that the Nation invest 
now in water reclamation and reuse projects for the future.
  This account also provides very important funds for rural water 
supply projects for tribal and rural communities, contributing to 
meeting the United States' trust responsibilities to Indian 
reservations through the delivery of safe drinking water.
  I share the gentleman's concern about health programs in the United 
States, and I can't think of anything more important than ensuring that 
people in 17 different States of this country have clean water to 
drink. And how shortsighted it would be to cut programs that provide 
clean drinking water for human health, so that we can spend untold sums 
of money on their health care after they get sick. If you want to talk 
about something that is penny-wise and pound-foolish, we have found it 
this afternoon.
  This is a health amendment. If we take these moneys away, we will do 
a disservice to the health of the people who live in these regions. As 
with the Corps of Engineers, Reclamation's infrastructure is aging, and 
it has increasing requirements for proper and adequate maintenance of 
its infrastructure.
  But 17 States cover a large area and swath of the continent. But I'm 
just wondering which citizens in which communities are we going to tell 
we just can't help you this year because we might have accepted the 
gentleman's amendment. Are we going to tell people in Wichita, Kansas, 
the Wichita Cheney program that maybe they're not going to get all of 
their money?
  Are we going to tell people at Lakehead, Nevada that well, we had to 
make a cut of $55 million, and you're just not going to have the 
resources you need?
  Or people in Oregon for the Crooked River project, are we going to 
tell them well, there's just not enough money now?
  Are we going to, in the State of Colorado, tell people in Pine River 
that we had to make a cut?
  In Texas, are we going to tell people for the Canadian River project 
that there just wasn't enough money to go around, or at Moon Lake in 
the State of Utah that we're sorry, Congress dropped the ball? Or for 
the Colombia River Basin project, that somehow there was a shortfall in 
us meeting our responsibilities?
  The gentleman's correct. This is a health amendment. This is clean 
drinking water for people who live in 17 States in the United States of 
America provided through infrastructure that is aging. We have a 
responsibility to invest in that, and that is why I'm strongly opposed 
to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Texas for this 
amendment. And let me begin where the gentleman from the other side of 
the aisle concluded when he asked the question? What if there is not 
enough money to go around?

[[Page 16254]]

  That is a question that we ask here in Congress in the House all the 
time. What if there's not enough money for my pet project to go around?
  What if there's not enough money for this earmark to go around?
  What if there's not enough money for this brand-new program to go 
around?
  But let me suggest to you that there's another variation of that 
question that we would be mindful of, and that is the families back at 
home that we represent. When the mom and dad sits at their dining room 
table at the end of each week with their checkbook out, paying their 
bills, be it for the electric bill, some other utility or heating bill, 
their rent or their mortgage, their food bill, their health or 
education bill for their children, or any other vital bill that that 
family has, and the husband looks over to the wife, and they realize 
that they have all these stacks of bills in front of them, and they 
have more bills than they have money in their checking account, and the 
wife asks the husband, what now, because there's not enough money to go 
around, what does that family do?
  Who does that family turn to when there's not enough money to go 
around?
  I can tell you where this Congress turns to when we say there's not 
enough money to go around. When we say there's not enough money to go 
around, what this House has done, or at least in the new budget that 
was presented in the Budget Committee which I serve on, by the other 
side of the aisle, what the Democrats propose to do is to simply raise 
taxes. And as we have seen in the proposed budget from the other side 
of the aisle, it is now the largest tax increase in U.S. history, on 
the backs of America's families, on the backs of that very same husband 
and wife who is sitting there saying to themselves, there's not enough 
money to go around to pay our bills, to pay our mortgage, to pay our 
health care bills, to send our kids to go to school.
  They can't raise taxes on anybody else. They can't go out to their 
neighbors and say, we can't afford food this week, we can't afford our 
rent this week. We can't afford to send our kids to the colleges we 
want to, so we're going to raise taxes on you. They can't do that. But 
somehow or other, Members of Congress think when they get elected 
around here, that we can do that by raising taxes, the largest tax 
increase in U.S. history, that somehow or other that we're entrusted to 
do such things and create slush funds and the like.
  Well, I stand before you and say that no, that the American public 
has sent a message to us, to both sides of the aisle, to Republicans 
and Democrats alike. Yes, the Democrats are now in charge, Mr. 
Chairman, of this House. And they are so because the American public 
spoke this last November, quite candidly, because perhaps the 
Republicans weren't listening well enough during that period of time.
  But I can tell you this, and those who listen to us on this floor 
today, the Republicans are listening very well right now, and the 
Democrats are not listening very well. The voters sent us a message in 
November and said enough is enough. We have to be concerned about the 
family budget sometimes instead of the Federal budget. We have to put 
the focus on the moms and dads out there being able to pay their bills 
for their kids' health care and the like, instead of always worrying 
about ever-increasing budgets on the Federal level.
  Now the proposal that is before us to look at would simply look to 
save a few million dollars out of a several trillion dollar budget, 
something that most Americans, myself included, can't really get our 
arms around when you think about how large this budget is. In a way, 
it's just a drop in the bucket when it comes to the budgets back here. 
But to the budget of the family at home, that's still a lot of money.
  The proposal that the good gentleman from Texas proposes here right 
now would simply try to rein in spending in such the smallest of ways, 
but it would be a good step in the right direction. It would be saying 
to the voters from last November, we heard you; we have to put the 
focus on the family budget, we're going to try to live within our 
means.
  And even when we are dealing with important issues, such as the 
gentleman from the other side of the aisle raised, whether it's water 
resources or the like, we're going to fund those programs. We're going 
to take care of those programs, but we're going to do it in an 
efficient and a manageable manner, and we're going to do so in a way 
that is not a burden on the American family budget any longer because 
we have heard you, and we realize that there will never be enough 
dollars for every single program that every single Member of Congress 
and the Senate come up with. But we are going to prioritize them, put 
them in order of importance, put them in an order that are most 
significant to the American family, fund those programs to the levels 
that are necessary. And the rest, we are going to do just as every 
family in America has to do, set limits on what we are going to spend 
on, set limits on how much we are going to spend, and live within our 
means.
  So to the good gentleman, Mr. Hensarling from Texas, I commend you 
for your work in trying to have this House live within its means.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield to our distinguished chairman.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman from New York yielding, and 
would simply reference the last speaker's assertion about pet projects 
and referencing those to the projects that I enumerated in my remarks.
  The fact is, I was enumerating projects on page 42 of the committee 
report, and 43 on the committee report, and page 44 on the committee 
report, and page 45 on the committee report that were submitted by the 
President of the United States.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I find the most recent comment of our good friend on 
the other side rather amusing, as the President is charged with 
executing the policies that this Congress puts in place; and heaven 
forbid, that he or whoever might occupy that office, might have certain 
priorities that they would want to bring about to, in fact, execute the 
policies that have been passed by this Congress.
  But be that as it may, I want to commend my good friend from Texas 
for bringing this amendment forward. I think that the amendment itself 
highlights truly the fallacy of the process that we're under. And that 
is, as my good friend from New Jersey just mentioned, that we fail in 
this Congress, at least the majority party fails in this Congress to 
prioritize spending in a way that passes a test that I believe the 
American people would be proud of or be pleased with.
  The point isn't, as my good friend from Indiana has stated, the 
specifics of the project that he identified. That is not the point of 
the debate that we would rise to engage in. The point is that when is 
enough enough? When is it that we, as a Federal Government, take hard-
earned tax money out of the pocketbooks and the back pockets of 
Americans and say, okay, that's all we need.
  Clearly, this new majority has said that we can't get enough. We 
can't get enough. And consequently, they have adopted, in this past 6 
months, a budget that includes the largest tax increase in the history 
of our Nation, the largest tax increase in the history of America.
  And I have friends at home who say, well, that wouldn't be so bad if, 
in fact, they were solving real problems. But, Mr. Chairman, as you 
well know, the challenge of the Federal spending, the challenge of the 
budgetary process is the automatic programs, the entitlement programs, 
the mandatory programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which 
comprise 54, 55 percent of our Federal budget.
  And the budget that this new majority passed that included the 
largest tax increase in the history of our Nation did nothing, said 
nothing about how to reform those programs; how to make certain that 
Social Security, which is a program that is challenged to be 
charitable, challenged from a process standpoint, to be able to provide 
a safety net

[[Page 16255]]

for those young citizens across our Nation who are in their 20s and 
30s.

                              {time}  1445

  It is a program that will not have those kinds of resources without 
structural change, and so the majority party passes a budget with the 
largest tax increase in the history of our Nation and says nothing, it 
is mute, as it relates to Social Security reform. Mr. Chairman, I don't 
think that is what the American people sent us to Washington to do. I 
think they sent us to Washington to solve real problems.
  As a physician prior to coming to Congress, one of the huge 
challenges that we face is the provision of health care and health 
insurance for our citizens. And, consequently, the other two limbs of 
the budgetary challenge that we have, Medicare and Medicaid, huge 
problems, huge challenges from a financial standpoint. They require 
structural change. However, this majority passed in their budget, again 
the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, nearly $400 
billion, and said nothing, nothing about structural reform to those 
programs that are imperative for the healthiness of our Nation.
  So when we talk about our concern regarding spending, it is not 
necessarily the specifics of a given paragraph within a spending bill. 
The specifics are the overall amount of money that we are spending as a 
Federal Government and the fact that we are ignoring, this Congress is 
ignoring, the true financial challenges that face us as a Nation.
  So I rise to commend my friend from Texas for offering an amendment 
that I think brings focus to where the debate ought to be, and that is 
to challenge each and every Member of this body and each and every 
Member of the Senate to make certain that before we end our time here 
this fiscal year, to make certain that the budget for fiscal year 2008 
is as responsible as it can be, that we address appropriately those 
huge financial challenges that we have as a Nation and be much more 
responsible with taxpayer money and make certain that we allow 
Americans to keep their hard-earned taxpayer money in their back pocket 
and in their pocketbooks.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                Central Valley Project Restoration Fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act (title XXXIV of Public 
     Law 102-575), $59,122,000, to be derived from such sums as 
     may be collected in the Central Valley Project Restoration 
     Fund pursuant to sections 3404(c)(3), 3405(f), and 3407(d) of 
     the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-
     575), to remain available until expended: Provided, That the 
     Bureau of Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the 
     full amount of the additional mitigation and restoration 
     payments authorized by section 3407(d) of the Central Valley 
     Project Improvement Act: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds made available under this heading may be used for the 
     acquisition or leasing of water for in-stream purposes if the 
     water is already committed to in-stream purposes by a court 
     adopted decree or order.


                    California Bay-Delta Restoration

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply, 
     Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 
     108-361), consistent with plans to be approved by the 
     Secretary of the Interior, $40,750,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which such amounts as may be necessary to 
     carry out such activities may be transferred to appropriate 
     accounts of other participating Federal agencies to carry out 
     authorized purposes: Provided, That funds appropriated herein 
     may be used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED 
     Program management: Provided further, That the use of any 
     funds provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for 
     program-wide management and oversight activities shall be 
     subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior: 
     Provided further, That CALFED implementation shall be carried 
     out in a balanced manner with clear performance measures 
     demonstrating concurrent progress in achieving the goals and 
     objectives of the Program: Provided further, That $5,000,000 
     shall be transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers to carry 
     out further study and implementation of projects that 
     contribute to the stability of the levee projects authorized 
     under section 103(f)(3) of the Water Supply, Reliability, 
     Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 108-361).


                       Policy and Administration

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and 
     related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, to remain available until expended, 
     $58,811,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be 
     nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That 
     no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be 
     available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and 
     administration expenses: Provided further, That, of the funds 
     provided under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be transferred 
     to ``Water and Related Resources'' upon the expiration of the 
     60-day period following the date of enactment of this Act if, 
     during such period, the Secretary of the Interior has not 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate the Bureau of Reclamation's 
     five-year budget plan.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lamborn:
       Page 14, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,236,000)''.

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, as we continue to wade through these 
massive and costly spending bills, my commitment to the American 
taxpayer remains strong. I signed a pledge to uphold a Presidential 
veto of any spending bill that exceeds the President's requested level 
of funding. Hopefully, we can contain some of this out-of-control 
spending and pass fiscally responsible legislation; but if not, I 
intend to honor that pledge.
  This appropriations bill would increase spending for energy and water 
projects by $1.1 billion more than the President's budget request and 
seeks to increase spending by more than $1.3 billion over last year's 
fiscal 2007 Energy and Water appropriations bill.
  We have an opportunity to demonstrate restraint by reducing the 
amount that the government spends, not increasing it. At a time when 
the Federal Government faces an $8.8 trillion national debt, we have a 
real opportunity to show the American people that we can be fiscally 
disciplined and that we will reduce this deficit. Increasing the size 
of government or bureaucracy will not help this reduction effort.
  My commonsense amendment would simply maintain the Policy and 
Administration account under the Bureau of Reclamation at fiscal year 
2007 levels, representing a $1.2 million reduction from $58.8 million 
to $57.6 million. That is the same as last year's budget. Given that 
this funding level was appropriate for last year's budget and our 
Nation needs to reduce Federal spending, this commonsense restraint 
should be acceptable.
  This amendment is not critical of the Bureau of Reclamation or its 
employees, who actually help deliver water to parts of my district and 
are important to the State of Colorado and to the entire West. It would 
simply require the Federal Government to operate the way any deficit-
laden business would. A private sector company experiencing the same 
deficits the Federal Government is facing would not increase its 
deficit. It would simply cut spending or go out of business. A family 
on a tight budget finds ways to go without, and we should explore every 
opportunity to be fiscally responsible as well.
  This amendment is the first step of many necessary steps enforcing 
fiscal discipline and sanity upon the Federal Government and out-of-
control Federal deficit spending. We must restore fiscal discipline and 
assure the American people that we are doing whatever is necessary to 
reduce our national debt. To do this, we must find commonsense and 
innovative new ways to do more with less.
  The American people have asked Congress to rein in Federal spending 
and tighten its belt. This reasonable amendment does just that, and I 
urge its adoption.

[[Page 16256]]


  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor in support of yet another good and 
commonsense amendment. Good and common sense because it asks of this 
Congress to do the very same thing that any family in America and any 
small business in America would do under similar circumstances.
  The American public right now is looking at, as we have already seen, 
the largest tax increase in U.S. history. And let me just take a 
moment, though, before I go into the particulars on this amendment to 
explain how that impacts upon the average American family.
  There was an article in the New York Times several months ago after 
the Democrats proposed their budget, which is inclusive of what we have 
here before us, to say how would this, the largest tax increase in 
American history, impact a family of four, the average American family 
of four maybe in the Fifth Congressional District, maybe in Bergen 
County, which is one of the great counties of New Jersey that I 
represent, an average family of four, four individuals, making around 
$70,000, which I should point out by no means in the great State of New 
Jersey would be considered by most people an affluent family. That 
family would see their taxes, because of this underlying legislation 
combined with the overall budget, go up by upwards to $1,500, $1,600 
year. That would mean $1,500 or $1,600 more coming to the Federal 
Treasury into the Federal checkbook as opposed to being able to stay in 
the family checkbook. That means $1,500 or $1,600 more coming down to 
the Washington bureaucrats as opposed to being able to remain in the 
family checkbook on the kitchen table where Mom and Dad are able to 
decide should those dollars be spent on their son's college education, 
on their daughter's health care expenses, on their in-laws' necessary 
expenses that they must share with, whatever else, to Washington as 
opposed to the family budget.
  Now, the good gentleman from Colorado comes up with an amendment to 
try to address that. If we are able to hold the line on overall 
spending just as an average family would have to do, we would not see 
the need for this, the largest tax increase in American history. And 
what does the good gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) do? Well, he 
simply says hold the line on spending for, let us say, the bureaucrats, 
if you will, all good men and women, I am sure, the people in the 
policy and administration account under this bill, under the Bureau of 
Reclamation, hold the spending at 2007 levels. By doing so, we will be 
saving some money. That will represent a $1.236 million reduction, from 
$58.8 million to $57.57 million.
  Some of you may say in this grand scheme of things when we are 
looking at our Federal budget upwards of almost $3 trillion, saving 
$1.2 million is not that much. But the flip side of that argument is if 
it really isn't that much of a cut, then it really shouldn't be that 
much to bear for the Federal Government. If we are not really not 
cutting that much, then the bureaucrats and the rest who have such a 
huge budget as it is should not feel the squeeze that much. But all we 
are asking them to do, like any other family does, is to live on their 
budget for this year.
  I ask how many Americans saw their income rise last year by one, two, 
two-\1/2\ times the rate of inflation? I can tell you quite candidly 
most of the people that I talk to in my district, unfortunately, did 
not see their incomes rise that much, but yet that is what we are 
asking them to do in the sense of higher taxes to pay for the increase 
in spending for the overall budget that we have here.
  Let me just conclude in the same way that the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Lamborn) does in his letter. He says, and I think these are the 
most poignant words: ``We must restore fiscal discipline and assure the 
American people that we are doing whatever is necessary to reduce our 
national debt. To do this, we must find both commonsense and innovative 
ways to do more with less. The American people have asked Congress to 
rein in Federal spending and to tighten its belt. This reasonable 
amendment does just that.'' And he asks us all from both sides of the 
aisle, Republican and Democrat alike, to join with the gentleman from 
Colorado to work to make sure that we do not have the largest tax 
increase in American history, to work to make sure that we have a 
system that is common sense, efficient, and appropriate on the Federal 
level, just as we have asked for the American family at home.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is amazing. If folks on the other side keep saying 
tax increase, they are actually going to believe that there is a tax 
increase.
  What I notice is that they very rarely mention deficit because when 
they do, they leave themselves open for discussion on the deficit. Yes, 
there is a deficit and the American people are quickly finding that 
out. The deficit was not created in the last less than 6 months that 
Democrats have had control of this House. The deficit was created by 
taking us into a war that we shouldn't have been involved in where 
close to $600 billion has been spent, not to mention the loss of life, 
not to mention the fact that when our troops come home over the next 
10, 15, 20 years, we will be paying in deficit spending to make up for 
medical care and all the needs that I certainly will be supporting for 
them.

                              {time}  1500

  Now, it's interesting, Mr. Chairman, how the other side mentions that 
this bill spends money. Well, in a way that's redundant because that's 
what the Constitution says the Appropriations Committee is supposed to 
do. It is supposed to come to the Congress every year and spend 
dollars. How much we spend, that's a discussion.
  But if there was ever a place where you can justify a modest 
increase, it would be when you deal with the energy issues in our 
country. There are dollars here, no one is mentioning, for research. 
There are dollars here to deal with the energy issue.
  Now, every American knows that probably at the center of issues in 
this country is the high cost of fuel in this country, whether for 
driving or heating our homes. So when you take some of those tax 
dollars and you spend them, a very modest amount, on research to see if 
there is a way that in the future we can cut out our dependency on 
foreign oil, that is a great investment. That is no different than 
investing in a college or education for the children. It is the same 
kind. But again, we are not going to hear that. What we are going to 
hear is this repetition about how money is being spent, and that there 
is a tax increase.
  I don't remember a tax increase in the 6 months that we have been 
here as Democrats. What I do remember that caused a deficit was, one, 
the war; and two, that we did have a tax decrease in this country, a 
tax cut, we did. But it wasn't for anybody that we know, certainly no 
one I know. It was for millionaires and zillionaires, including some of 
them who told us that they didn't even want a tax cut. Those are the 
people.
  So if indeed those tax cuts reach their sunset and die, I guess you 
could play with words and say that taxes will go up. Yeah, for somebody 
who has $100 million, he or she might pay more taxes later on. But the 
working class, the people who are getting help for their education, the 
folks that are getting a better deal on energy propositions in the 
future, those are the facts, the people that we are looking for. Now, 
you want to cut the deficit down? You want to create a situation where 
we will spend less money in this country? Stop the war now. Stop 
spending another dollar on the war in Iraq.
  But it has been forgotten. It's all about tax-and-spend Democrats. My 
God, when you hear this, Mr. Chairman, you would think we were in 
control for the last 14 years. No, it's 12, 14 years against less than 
6 months. And in those 6 months we have spoken to parents about their 
kids' education. In those 6 months we've made attempts to

[[Page 16257]]

bring down the cost of gasoline. In those 6 months, yes, we gave a 
minimum wage increase to the lowest earners in this country. That's 
what we've done. And we will be proud of that. You want to cut the 
deficit that you created over 12 years? Stop the war now. That's the 
best way to do it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  There were so many inaccuracies in that last speech, but there are at 
least a couple that I would like to correct relative to taxes, one of 
them being that in the last 6 years, the tax reductions that have been 
put in place actually reduce taxes for every single American who pays 
income taxes, and actually took some people that were paying income 
taxes and took them off the tax rolls. And that the Democrats' budget, 
which has in fact been passed, unlike the minimum wage increase which 
is not actually in the law at this point, but the Democrats' budget 
which has in fact been passed has proposed potentially to roll back all 
of those tax increases and thereby increase taxes on every single 
taxpayer in America.
  With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from California.
  To put things in perspective for my colleague from New York, it's 
true that the war in Iraq has cost $600 billion. That is 7 percent of 
the $8.8 trillion total national debt that we have. So we have to also 
address the remaining 93 percent of the debt, because the war is 7 
percent out of that $8.8 trillion.
  So, getting back to this amendment that is before us, I would differ 
with my colleague from New York. We are not cutting any research into 
energy development. We are cutting the bureaucracy expense. We are 
cutting the policy and administration portion of the Bureau of 
Reclamation. We are just keeping it to last year's dollar amount. So 
the bureaucracy, the administration of the Bureau of Reclamation is 
what is being kept to last year's figures. There is no cut going on for 
any research development program whatsoever. So I just wanted to make 
that correction.
  Apparently I haven't won over my colleague from New York yet, but I 
would urge everyone else here to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman, and I would just 
like to amplify what he said, that if in fact what this amendment does 
is take spending to last year, then it's not a cut at all. It's not 
even a cut of the bureaucracy that you're talking about, it is in fact 
making this line or this area of expenditure the same as last year.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I was compelled to come down to just comment about some 
of the information that we've heard from the other side regarding 
issues not necessarily related to this amendment, because they 
broadened the debate significantly to talk about the deficit. And Mr. 
Chairman, as you well know, the deficit has been decreasing 
significantly for reasons that I would like to touch on a little bit.
  They also talked about the issue of the work that they had 
accomplished, that this majority had accomplished. And they talk about 
decreasing gas prices. Well, in fact, what their gas bill did, Mr. 
Chairman, as you recall is to increase taxes on United States oil 
companies. Sounds good maybe in some districts, I don't know; mine is 
not terribly interested in anybody paying more taxes. But they 
increased taxes on United States oil companies. Now that bill sits in 
the Senate, thank goodness, because hopefully the Senate will be able 
to resolve it and correct it so that the actual policy of this Congress 
on gas prices will indeed be to bring them down. It takes greater 
responsibility to do that.
  If in fact that were to become law, then what we would do under the 
direction of this majority party is to decrease the ability for 
American oil companies to produce American oil, and we would increase 
our reliance and our dependency on foreign oil; not the greatest energy 
plan, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest.
  They also talked about assisting kids' education, college education. 
We have that as a goal, certainly. We think it's appropriate to provide 
for greater resources for American citizens to attend higher education. 
What does their bill do, though, Mr. Chairman? Again, it sits in the 
Senate, so hopefully we will have the Senate correct that.
  But what their bill does is to ratchet down very gradually the 
interest rate that students pay on loans to go to college and keeps 
them at half their current rate for 6 months, Mr. Chairman, and then, 
boom, right back up to where they were. Well, Mr. Chairman, that isn't 
leadership either.
  Now, this chart right here, Mr. Chairman, talks about the increasing 
Federal revenue. But this red line here could be jobs, it could be 
increasing Federal revenue, it could be economic development. And there 
was a remarkable thing that occurred in 2003 that made it so that that 
line goes up appropriately. Thank goodness, the American people say. 
Appropriately, Federal revenues increase, economic development 
increases, jobs increase. And what happened in 2003 was the culmination 
of appropriate tax reductions for the American people. And what does 
this majority want to do? It wants to take that line back down. Because 
what they've done is passed a budget that reverses every single tax 
reduction, appropriate tax reduction, for the American people. Mr. 
Chairman, that is not the kind of leadership, I don't think, the 
American people deserve, nor is it the type of leadership that they 
desire.
  So, when we broaden this debate, it's appropriate, because the 
American people, Mr. Chairman, the American people are watching, and 
what they see is a majority party that is terribly interested in making 
certain that the American people are taxed to a greater degree so that 
they ostensibly have more money to be able to spend on their pet 
programs.
  My good friend says that it's only folks who make hundreds of 
millions of dollars who will have their taxes go up. Well, Mr. 
Chairman, that is not the case, as you well know. Taxes will increase 
for virtually every single American. Anybody who pays taxes now, under 
this new majority if they get their way, will have increased taxes. 
That's not the kind of leadership I believe the American people voted 
for in November, it is not the kind of leadership that we would 
provide, it is not the kind of leadership that the American people 
deserve.
  So, I am pleased that my good friends on the other side have 
broadened the debate because it results in the opportunity to bring 
into focus greater clarity to these budget bills, greater clarity to 
these appropriations bills, and makes certain that the American people 
are paying attention to the kind of leadership that this new majority 
is offering, or the lack of leadership they're offering.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield to my friend from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I think it is a significant point that you 
raise with regard to what level of American taxpayers will be subjected 
to these taxes.
  I come from the great State of New Jersey, where we had similar 
rhetoric, if you will, from the other side of the aisle on the State 
level. And we actually heard the exact same arguments being made: Don't 
worry, they're going to come up with what they call the millionaires' 
tax; and if you're not a millionaire, don't worry about it. Well, truth 
be told, after all the dust was scattered away from the bills, after 
all the hearings were held, after all the press conferences and 
everything else was done by the Democrats in the State of New Jersey, 
we found that that level went from $1 million to $900,000 to $800,000 
to $700,000 to $600,000 to $500,000, $400,000, $300,000, 250-some-odd 
thousand dollars at the end of the day. Now, you still say they may be 
a large income? Well, in the State of New Jersey, if you're a two-
income family making a hundred-some-odd thousand dollars, you found 
that you would still be subject to tax on that.

[[Page 16258]]


  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to actually talk about the bill, and I would like to 
talk about the underlying merits of what Mr. Hobson and I and the 
members of the subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee have 
tried to do.
  In this particular title, we are talking about the Bureau of 
Reclamation, and we are talking about people's health and well-being. 
Part of that does include the wise stewardship of the moneys that are 
provided. From the debate that has taken place today, you would think 
that the only thing we are worried about is spending money and worried 
about the quantity of the money that we are spending as opposed to the 
quality of the underlying act and the work that the agencies do. And I 
would draw, Mr. Chairman, my colleague's attention to page 48 of the 
report that goes into great detail, and I am going to read it.
  The gentleman has an amendment before us to cut $1.236 million from 
the bill. And the fact is, over the last several years our 
subcommittee, under the leadership of then-Chairman Hobson, as well as 
myself, have done everything possible to make sure that the moneys 
being spent by the Bureau of Reclamation are being spent wisely.
  And I read from the report. ``In fiscal year 2006, the Committee 
directed the Department of Interior to submit, with its fiscal year 
2007 budget request, a detailed 5-year budget plan for each of the 
major budget components, including water and related resources, 
California Bay Delta Restoration program, Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund, and Central Utah Project Completion.''
  Because the concern of the subcommittee then, and as it is as of this 
moment, is that the public's moneys are being spent with quality as 
well.
  ``The Department subsequently informed the Committee that it would be 
unable to provide a 5-year plan for fiscal year 2007 and intended to 
make the initial submission with the fiscal year 2008 request. The 
Bureau failed to make that submission either, and now informs the 
Committee that the 5-year plan will be submitted at some undefined time 
in the future.''
  The patience of the subcommittee, the patience of the Appropriations 
Committee is not without limit. And as a result, in the report language 
we note the Committee's extreme frustration with the Bureau's inability 
to provide a 5-year budget plan, the act contains a provision that 
transfers $10 million, not $1.236 million, but $10 million from policy 
and administration to water and related resources if the 5-year plan is 
not submitted within 60 days of date of enactment. We are certainly not 
afraid to move moneys around, and in this case, to the tune of $10 
million, if the good judgment of this committee is not abided by.
  So I would emphasize that this is not just a matter of quantity of 
money, it is quality of money. And that is what we are about. That is 
why I am adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

                              {time}  1515

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

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

             General Provisions, Department of the Interior

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

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS


                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and 
     renewable energy activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,873,844,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


         Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

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

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
       Page 16, line 19, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $101,550,000)''.

  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr Chairman, one of the last speakers on 
the other side of the aisle mentioned that he wasn't quite sure why we 
kept talking about taxes and tax increases, because inevitably if you 
head toward the balanced budget, that is what all spending turns into: 
it turns into taxes.
  In fact, the Democratic budget, which, to the majority party's 
credit, is heading toward a balanced budget in 5 years, as were I 
believe virtually all of the budgets that were presented this year, but 
it does so by saying, in its own terms, that they will raise taxes as 
much as they need to at the end of that 5 years in order to achieve a 
balanced budget.
  So when we are talking today about things that are increasing in 
spending, this isn't something that is abstract. This isn't $20 million 
here, $40 million here, $100 billion there of just sort of faceless, 
nameless money. That is money in figures that are so large that most 
people, Mr. Chairman, have a hard time even comprehending how much that 
is and how it can relate to the things that we are doing.
  But it makes it a little more down-to-earth, brings it a little more 
home, when you look at each one of these, which is the way we should 
look at them, Mr. Chairman, each one of these spending increases on 
each program, on each bill, on each thing here, and realize that every 
dollar of increase there is a dollar that the majority party wants to 
go get out of the pockets of taxpayers at home. That is what we are 
really talking about. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I propose this 
amendment.
  Now, this amendment refers to just one of the many, many projects and 
many, many programs in this appropriations bill. This one is something 
that deals with weatherization assistance, and the bill that is before 
us proposes to increase weatherization assistance spending by 20 
percent over last year.
  Now, what is interesting is that in the President's budget, which 
this amendment proposes to reduce the spending to, the President has 
actually proposed to reduce this to almost half. Why is that? Because 
in something that is called energy efficiency and renewable energy, 
this program is actually not at all efficient.
  I actually had some personal experience with this program, not 
personal in the sense that I was dealing with the

[[Page 16259]]

program from a recipient standpoint, but when I was in the State 
legislature with this program in California. By the time that you deal 
with the Federal bureaucracy and then you get the money to the State 
and there is the State bureaucracy, and then you put this money out, 
very little of this money was actually going to anything toward the 
goal that was accomplished. And what is interesting is it is also 
creating a subsidy for something that already pays for itself.
  The reason people weatherize their homes or seal leaks and so forth 
or cracks in windows and doors is because it saves you money on your 
energy bill over time.
  So this is a program that has been shown to be inefficient, has been 
shown to not be effective, that subsidizes something that doesn't need 
subsidization, and which in this bill is proposed to increase by 20 
percent.
  Now, the President's budget proposed to reduce this. It is one of 
those things on that list of programs that a number of people have that 
are saying these are some of the most inefficient programs in the 
Federal Government today, and this is one of them that certainly should 
be reduced or perhaps eliminated.
  But instead, this bill proposes to increase it by nearly $40 million. 
And, again, $40 million, I guess sometimes this is the difference 
between government and not government. When things don't work in 
government, it seems that there is always a group of people saying the 
reason they are not working is because they don't have enough money, 
and we need to spend more money on them. Whereas, normally in the real 
world, Mr. Chairman, when something isn't working, that is when people 
take money from it, make it become more efficient, or not fund it 
anymore if it is not working.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment, just this one area of this one 
Department, proposes to reduce this to the President's proposed budget.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, of all the work Congress does, few things could be more 
important than to protect our Nation from the threat of nuclear 
terrorism. It is hard to imagine that in one instant a nuclear bomb 
detonating in a major American city could kill more of our citizens 
than we have lost in combat in every war in our Nation's history. Osama 
bin Laden has told his followers that it is their religious duty to 
secure loose nuclear materials for a bomb to be set off in the United 
States. It is our sacrosanct duty to ensure that that never happens.
  That is why I want to salute Chairman Visclosky for making homeland 
security against nuclear terrorism the highest of priorities in this 
bill. He is right to do so.
  This bill provides $2.1 billion to protect the American family from a 
nuclear holocaust, a level that is nearly $400 million above the 
administration's budget request. Specifically, it provides $832 million 
for international nuclear materials protection and cooperation 
activities, a $359 million increase to the budget request. With these 
funds, we will expand cooperative programs with Russia and other 
nations with vast inventories of nuclear material.
  In this bill, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative is increased by 
$132 million to a total of $251 million. This will assist us in 
identifying, securing, removing, and disposing of nuclear material 
throughout the world.
  The Megaports Initiative is funded at $25.8 million. This program 
installs radiation detectors at major seaports around the world so 
nuclear weapons and materials can be intercepted before they are 
smuggled into a major American city. This additional funding will allow 
the Department of Energy to install sensors at several key seaports 
this year, rather than waiting for several years to do so.
  I wanted to take a moment of my time to also compliment the 
hardworking, dedicated citizens who work at the Department of Energy on 
these nuclear nonproliferation programs. They work extraordinarily long 
hours, many spending long periods of time away from their families in 
the harsh Russian climate working to secure these materials and to 
protect us and our families from the threat of nuclear terrorism.
  Let me point out some of DOE's successes because of that hard work 
and because of the work of this subcommittee, chaired formerly by 
Chairman Hobson, who also made homeland security against nuclear 
terrorism a top priority:
  DOE in recent years has completed work securing nuclear materials at 
91 of 125 Russian nuclear weapons material and warhead sites, with the 
remainder in progress.
  We have secured more than 520 vulnerable radiological sites overseas, 
containing enough nuclear material to build approximately 7,700 dirty 
bombs.
  We have recovered over 14,000 radiological sources domestically, 
containing enough material for approximately 1,400 dirty bombs.
  We have equipped 88 land border crossings in Russia with radiation 
detection equipment, with work complete or under way in eight other 
countries.
  We have installed Megaports radiation detection equipment at eight 
ports, with operational testing and evaluation under way at one 
additional port.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, President Bush said that protecting our 
Nation from nuclear terrorism should be our Nation's number one 
national security priority. I agree. With the strong leadership of 
Chairman Visclosky and now Ranking Member Hobson, this bill takes a 
significant step forward in protecting our communities, our families 
and our Nation from the threat of nuclear terrorism.
  That is why I urge bipartisan support for this important legislation.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California. I note that this amendment is offered to the 
section of the bill on energy efficiency and renewable energy, and I 
would note first that the President's request for this year is more 
than 10 percent below on every one of the renewable energy accounts in 
the budget. Those are cuts below the 2007 enacted amount, and it covers 
biomass, which leads to the biomass accounts, which include biodiesel, 
corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, which, of course, is the area that 
so many people believe is going to be a major saver in the future.
  It includes solar energy, wind energy, geothermal technology, 
hydropower, vehicle technologies, where 30 percent of all of our energy 
is used, building technologies, where 40 percent of all of our energy 
is used, industrial technologies, where 20 percent of all of our energy 
is used. And the President proposes in those areas 10 percent 
reductions below the enacted, whereas the subcommittee, in its wisdom, 
and apparently agreed to certainly by me and certainly apparently 
agreed by the gentleman from California, the committee has added moneys 
over the enacted number for 2007. So we apparently agree on that.
  But then, oddly enough, the gentleman from California chooses to 
attack the one program that gives direct help to low-income households 
in this country. It is the one program, the weatherization program, 
where low-income households can get assistance to install energy-saving 
technologies and measures in their homes.
  Well, it turns out there are something like 14 million households in 
this country that have incomes of less than 50 percent of the median 
income in various areas around the country. Half of them live in homes. 
Most of those homes are very inefficient users of energy. So the Low 
Income Weatherization Program is a program that would help those homes 
be more efficient in the use of energy.
  The President's request for this year is in fact below the enacted 
2007 number actually by more than 30 percent below what the enacted 
2007 number was. Enacted 2006 number was even higher than the 2007 
number. So the committee, in its wisdom, has instead recommended 
raising the number to the 2006 level, to the levels expended in fiscal 
year 2006, and the gentleman

[[Page 16260]]

from California wants to take it back from the committee's number by 
this time 45 percent or something like that, the exact number I haven't 
quite calculated.

                              {time}  1530

  Those moneys are well invested in those homes which low-income 
households are using, where energy is so inefficiently used, where we 
can save a substantial amount of energy every year, thereby reducing 
greenhouse gases that are produced in the production of the energy that 
would otherwise be wasted in those homes. And where one would say far 
beyond the cost of the energy-saving measures that would be part of the 
weatherization program, far beyond the cost. In such situations, you 
are saving the amount of the cost within a 3 or 4 or 5-year period when 
the savings go on long into the future, year after year after year, 
saving energy and reducing greenhouse gases and saving dollars. Perhaps 
most important for those people, it is the savings of the dollars that 
they otherwise would spend in those low-income households where the 
amount of money spent on housing per se in low-income households tends 
to be up in the two-thirds to three-quarters of the total household 
income.
  So I think the weatherization program is a very useful program, a 
very effective program for saving money for people at the lowest levels 
of income. I hope we will soundly defeat this amendment by the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all before I begin, let me commend a prior 
speaker, the gentleman from Texas, with his references to homeland 
security and the efforts that need to be made. I completely concur with 
the majority of the points that he makes.
  This House, as you know, just dealt with those issues the other day 
on homeland security and how it relates to my congressional district is 
one of the forefront issues that I deal with. I commend the points he 
is making there.
  Tied to homeland security is energy security as well. We will not be 
a secure country if we are not secure with regard to our energy needs. 
Much in this underlying legislation and what the administration is 
calling for is working towards that laudable goal, energy efficiency 
and renewable energies as well. And I concur with the previous speaker 
with his remarks as well, that we must move in that direction.
  I guess the rub is how you get to some of these things. When you talk 
to your local constituents back at home. When we have the opportunity 
to go back to our districts and talk to them and they see just how 
Washington spends their very hard-earned dollars, they must think we 
are literally burning their dollars down here and wasting them on 
inefficient programs. Some of them of course are important. Others need 
to be prioritized down the line to put them in the proper perspective.
  The legislation we have before us, more specifically the amendment, 
goes to that ultimate goal, setting priorities. Now the gentleman who 
is proposing this amendment is from the great State of California, a 
very warm State. I have come from the great Northeast where 
weatherization is a critical matter, especially for the low-income 
individuals who need to do something in order to make sure that their 
limited dollars go as far as they possibly can.
  They are called upon in their daily lives to be as efficient as they 
can with their limited dollars, whether it is spending on food or rent 
costs, or in this case, their energy costs.
  But they are asking us the very same thing in Washington. They are 
asking us to be efficient and effective with their dollars because they 
want to tell us these dollars are limited as well. Because it comes out 
of the American taxpayers' pocketbook.
  What we are looking at here is the largest tax increase in U.S. 
history, and this is going to be a negative impact on the average 
American family of $1,500 or $2,000 more that comes out of their 
wallets and is sent to Washington. They are asking to make sure that 
the dollars spent are done effectively.
  I am a Member of the 108th Congress. I came in with the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a few others, I believe, that started a 
group called WWW, Washington Waste Watchers. They would come to the 
floor each week and talk about areas of concern to them and this entire 
Congress to make sure that Washington moves in the right direction, to 
be stopping this wasteful spending of dollars.
  So before we take a program that is already in existence, that we 
know as the testimony here earlier from the gentleman from California 
may be a laudable program in some sense in terms of providing 
assistance to those who need it, but it is wasting the dollars in 
another sense because it is not really getting to those individuals who 
desperately need it, and it is going elsewhere and being done in an 
inefficient manner.
  Before we simply up the dollars and not make sure that those dollars 
get to those low- and moderate-income people to get the job done, as 
the gentleman from California pointed out, let's make sure that we have 
something, something to make sure that we do so in an efficient and 
effective manner. That is what the WWW, Washington Waste Watchers, is 
trying to do. That is what the Republican side of the aisle is trying 
to do.
  Let's implement programs to say we will operate this House of 
Representatives the same as a family's budget would; that we will 
operate just as stringently with our dollars here as if they were our 
very own. We will make sure that there are systems in place, 
accountability in place to make sure that the dollars really get to the 
places they need to get to. And before we get those mechanisms set up 
and established, we are not going to waste any more taxpayer dollars by 
going to them and saying we are going to raise tax dollars or raise tax 
rates, and simply up the spending on a program until we can certify 
that program is being run effectively and efficiently.
  I commend the gentleman from California for trying to move in the 
right direction to make sure that we don't have the largest tax 
increase in history, and to make sure that programs like this are run 
efficiently and effectively.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas.
  I want to make a last couple of comments relative to the comments 
made by the gentleman from Massachusetts. A lot of what the gentleman 
from Massachusetts said I agree with. I think we differ in three basic 
areas.
  One is that the gentleman from Massachusetts believes this program 
has been effective. My involvement with it in California and things 
that I have seen statistically here say otherwise. Certainly the 
administration agrees this program has not been a cost-effective 
program.
  Second is talking about how this thing might save money here. But 
where does this money come from? It is $245 million. This money does 
not come from the sky. It does not come from the air. It comes from 
taxpayers. And the question is not does it save anybody any money or 
anybody anything; is it cost effective in what it does? And I think the 
answer is ``no.''
  The third comment I would like to make is that the gentleman pointed 
out a number of programs in this bill which have all been increased in 
this proposed bill. That is fine, but I guess I would ask this: Are 
there no programs here which are not effective? Are there no programs 
that deserve some reduction in spending or perhaps even elimination?
  Ronald Reagan said that the closest thing to eternal life is a 
government program, and I believe we are seeing with programs like this 
that those words Ronald Reagan made some time ago ring true.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 16261]]


  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to share, when asked what programs have 
been cut or not cut, I want to share with you, 37 cuts to Department of 
Energy weapons programs; 57 programs have been cut overall; 20 cuts to 
other programs, 2 in the Corps of Engineers, 2 in the Bureau of 
Reclamation, 3 independent agencies, and 13 in the Department of 
Energy. There have been 16 of 37 weapons cuts that were requested by 
the administration.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for electricity delivery and 
     energy reliability activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $134,161,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                             Nuclear Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for nuclear energy activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, and the purchase of not to exceed 20 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only, including one ambulance, 
     $759,227,000, to remain available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
       Page 17, line 14, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $20,000,000)(increased by $20,000,000)''.

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, this is a very simple 
amendment and perhaps the majority might want to just accept it, so let 
me just explain.
  The generation IV nuclear energy systems program is the next far, far 
generation program. We have been waiting and working for the generation 
III program. This is about the generation IV after that, which is 2030. 
There is a lot of money in this that is going to be used to develop 
energy far into the future, and yet we have in the present nuclear 
power program of 2010, we have need for this money here and today.
  I point this out to my colleagues, particularly on that side of the 
aisle, that if we don't get enough money to the nuclear power 2010 
program, power plants across this country will be forced to build gas 
and coal-burning power plants to meet the ever-growing energy demands 
of this Nation.
  So if you really want to reduce greenhouse gases, I think you should 
support my amendment because you are basically taking this money, $20 
million, from the generation IV nuclear systems energy account which 
has been funded at almost $80 million above the President's budget 
request, and you are simply transferring it to the nuclear power 2010 
account which is funded almost $34 million below the President's budget 
request.
  If the other side is willing to accept my amendment, I am willing to 
stop talking and we can proceed. If you are concerned about global 
warming and coal- and gas-burning, this will help our Nation move 
forward by helping the nuclear power plants in the near, near future 
instead of the far, far future.
  Let me talk about the nuclear power 2010 program. It is intended 
simply to encourage near-term orders for advanced versions of existing 
commercial nuclear plants. Frankly, it is an integral part of the goal 
of constructing new plants in the next decade.
  Approximately two-thirds of the new reactors use a reactor technology 
that depends on nuclear power 2010. Nuclear power plants generate 
electricity without producing or emitting any greenhouse gases, 
including carbon dioxide. Nuclear power plants generate 73 percent of 
all carbon-free electricity in America and are an essential mitigation 
tool for reducing greenhouse gases.
  If we are serious about addressing the issue of global climate 
change, then nuclear power must be a critical component of any future 
energy and environmental strategy we have in this country.
  With the additional funds in this amendment, the program for 2010, we 
could focus more on reducing the technical, regulatory and 
institutional barriers to the deployment of new nuclear power plants in 
the near term while still allowing a generous increase in funds for the 
generation IV program. So the money is already there for generation IV. 
So I am just asking a very modicum amount, taking from the generation 
IV and moving it to the near term, so that we can build these nuclear 
power plants.
  I conclude by saying failure to meet the goals of the nuclear 2010 
program could result in delays 1 year, 2 years, possibly 3 years, and 
create the possibility of an indefinite delay as companies attempt to 
meet the demand with other types of generation, including coal and 
natural gases.
  I conclude and thank my colleagues for listening, but I think when 
you realize it is not very complicated, we are just taking $20 million 
from a generation IV nuclear research program that we have no results 
from and don't know anything about and moving them to a current program 
in 2010 and saying let's let the nuclear industry have this special 
advantage so we can combat global warming and we can make sure that we 
move forward with nuclear power generation in this country as soon as 
possible.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I appreciate what the gentleman wants to do. We certainly share a 
concern about global warming. We also share a desire to ensure that we 
have a viable nuclear industry in the near term as well as the long 
term. Where there would be a difference of opinion is the balance that 
needs to be struck in this legislation to accomplish both of those 
goals.
  I would point out that the legislation that has been reported to the 
House has done everything possible to ensure that the nuclear industry 
can move forward. For example, we have fully funded the President's 
request for $494 million for Yucca Mountain to make sure that they can 
meet their deadline for the submission of a license for the waste 
repository in June of 2008. The industry clearly needs the repository.
  The House bill includes $167.8 million for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, something that I think the gentleman would agree is 
critically necessary as far as the licensing procedures in the shorter 
term. This is a $17.1 million increase over the administration's 
request, more than 10 percent more. And I would point out that in the 
continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007, this was one of the few 
accounts that this subcommittee specifically also increased. We also 
include $15 million within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 
nuclear engineering scholarships that were proposed for termination by 
the administration, because if we do not have new, bright talent in 
those educational facilities under scholarship, we are not going to 
have a future.
  And we did include moneys for Nuclear Power 2010. It is the same 
level as the current fiscal year. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that 
this is a direct payment to utilities undergoing the NRC license 
process and no other sector of the energy portion of this country 
receives this type of Federal assistance.

[[Page 16262]]

  The gentleman would take the money from Generation IV nuclear energy 
systems by having the moneys reduced. I would point out that the 
subcommittee went to great lengths to increase moneys for Generation 
IV. We are supportive of the light water reactors that are going to be 
coming online in the near term. We want to make sure we have that next 
generation of reactors online as well for the future, one that can not 
only provide electrical industry to our Nation that is needed but also 
potentially produce the hydrogen for the new economy we are looking 
for. We have provided those moneys and would not want to see them cut.
  Additionally, we had a debate and conversation earlier today about 
the mixed oxide program that previously had been designated a 
nonproliferation item. We have correctly moved it into the Energy 
Department as far as their accounts and would point out that $689 
million between unobligated balances, between the spending for '07 and 
between what is included in this bill, is included for MOX.
  So we have been more than generous, and I also think we have struck 
the right balance to ensure that we do have an industry starting up in 
the near term and one that has a long-term, safe future for the 
generation of energy in this country.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The bill 
includes a $33 million cut to Nuclear Power 2010. While that level may 
be difficult for some to accept, I fully support it.
  Nuclear Power 2010 was designed to facilitate industry decisions to 
build and operate new nuclear power plants in the U.S. And that would 
be great for America. We need a dramatic increase in reliable, safe 
baseload energy; and I would much rather see it come from nuclear 
energy than from coal plants.
  Unfortunately, most of the funding that we have provided for Nuclear 
Power 2010 doesn't go to help industry figure out our untested 
regulatory process or to identify new sites for plants. Most of the 
funding in this account has been provided to support the work of 
reactor designers. There is little uncertainty about reactor design. It 
doesn't need our support through this program. And there's really no 
such thing as struggling mom-and-pop reactor design teams. But I do 
know that we must continue to support design for the next generation of 
reactors. This bill does just that. It increases our support to the Gen 
IV nuclear design program by $79 million. That's where nuclear R&D 
should be funded, not from Nuclear Power 2010.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this amendment.
  I yield additional time to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have that the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio gave me?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4 minutes on the gentleman 
from Ohio's time.
  Mr. STEARNS. If I might address the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. 
Chairman, I have here the Energy and Water Development appropriations 
bill. On page 68, it indicates that the Nuclear Power 2010, you provide 
about $80 million, a decrease of $34 million. So the question I have 
for you, if you support this program so much, why would you cut it $34 
million, which is basically a huge percentage?
  Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana to answer the 
question.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to the question raised. 
First of all I would point out that the funds that are provided are at 
this year's fiscal level. It is not a cut. It is a cut from the 
President's request.
  The other observation I would make is I believe that the Department 
should be in the business of science research and development and not 
exclusively be paying for companies to license new reactors, so that 
would certainly do justification.
  Mr. STEARNS. Then the other question is, in Generation IV, the 
nuclear energy system by which you increased it $80 million, it seems 
to me, and you might want to answer this question, here you have a 
program that is a fourth generation of nuclear research. We don't even 
have the results from the second and third generation nuclear research, 
yet you're increasing a huge amount of money for something well into 
the future when you have a system, the 2010 energy system, which could 
use this money today and would go towards improving global warming and 
put less demand on all these nuclear energy companies because they 
certainly can't meet the demand in the next 2 years without burning 
coal and gas.
  So I ask the gentleman, why would he want to increase something 
that's a fourth generation when the second and third generation have 
not even been successful in providing anything for us?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. And if the gentleman from Ohio would yield, I would be 
happy to respond.
  Mr. HOBSON. I yield.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would point out that there was a $70 million 
increase, and I would not want to engage in quibbling as to whether it 
is a second, third or fourth generation, but do believe there is a 
strong public purpose for demonstrating the commercial viability of the 
thermal-neutron gas reactor for the very purposes that the gentleman is 
concerned about and that I share his concern, that is, climate change 
and global warming and energy sources, where we can generate the 
electricity in this country as well as potentially produce hydrogen. We 
ought to start down that road sooner rather than later, and again in a 
balanced fashion along with 2010.
  Mr. HOBSON. Taking back my time, I would point out to the gentleman 
from Florida that we do have the capability, and we do understand 
Generation 3, 3\1/2\. Where we need to go is beyond that and look at 
Gen IV. That's what we're trying to do in the bill now, and that's why 
we oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Schmidt

  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Schmidt:
       Page 17, line 14, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $80,000,000)''.
       Page 21, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $80,000,000)''.

  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for our 
chairman and ranking member and realize the very difficult undertaking 
they have had in putting this bill together and balancing the number of 
important priorities within it. Unfortunately, the bill before us would 
drastically cut the President's request to $405 million for the Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, initiative to $120 million. This 
amounts to a $285 million reduction from the President's request for 
GNEP.
  At the same time, this bill goes well above the President's request 
for the Department of Energy science account. The President's request 
for the science account was already a 15.8 percent increase above the 
fiscal 2007 level. On top of this, the House bill provides another $116 
million above the administration's request. My amendment would provide 
an additional $80 million for the GNEP initiative, offset by an $80 
million decrease in the science account.
  If we are going to be serious about reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions, addressing climate change and reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil, we need to allow GNEP to proceed in a meaningful capacity. 
To accomplish these

[[Page 16263]]

objectives, we need to diversify our energy supply and increase energy 
efficiency and conservation. Nuclear energy is a vital component to 
diversifying our energy supply and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 
And in order for the nuclear renaissance to become a reality, we must 
address the spent fuel issue, which is what GNEP is all about.
  Recycling spent nuclear fuel is a way to reduce by about 95 percent 
the volume of waste that would have to be disposed of at the Yucca 
Mountain repository. Recycling would also enable us to reduce the 
radioactive life of this material from millions of years to thousands. 
Whether you support nuclear energy or not, these two points should be 
very positive if we are going to take better care of our environment.
  Since the 1970s, the United States has been falling behind the world 
in nuclear technology. It is vital that we fund this program at a 
sufficient level that allows the United States to reestablish itself as 
a leader in the field.
  I appreciate the chairman and ranking member's work on this important 
issue. I would hope for some favorable comments from them. But I am 
going to at the end of this discussion ask for unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment in hopes that we can work it out at a later date.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's concern about research 
for nuclear energy in the future. I also appreciate the courtesy as far 
as her willingness to withdraw the amendment.
  The concern that the committee had is that the administration came in 
originally with a $405 million request. During hearings, the 
administration also suggested that all $405 million was for just 
research. The concern we have, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks 
during general debate, is contract management at the Department of 
Energy. And certainly it's not the fault of the gentlelady's, and I 
know she shares our concern, but there is a very bad track record at 
the Department of Energy; and the fact is they have been on a high-risk 
watch list for the General Accountability Office since the year 1990.

                              {time}  1600

  I would point out that the committee learned that the Department of 
Energy's use of technology readiness levels in the global nuclear 
energy partnership technology development plan does not apply readiness 
in the manner consistent with the recommendations in the General 
Accountability Office report of March of this year.
  So, looking ahead as far as potentially incurring huge long-term 
costs on behalf of the taxpayers, we have suggested that the 
administration take a step back, continue to do very necessary and very 
vital research, but let us take all deliberate speed as opposed to a 
rush to judgment and oppose her amendment, and I appreciate her 
consideration in withdrawing it.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment, and I thank the chairman for his time and consideration of 
this and hope that we can work together to make GNEP a reality in a 
meaningful, bipartisan way so that the United States can continue to be 
a world leader, not just in nuclear energy but in energy independence 
from foreign oil.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         Clean Coal Technology

                    (including rescission of funds)

       Of the funds made available under this heading for 
     obligation in prior years, $149,000,000 are rescinded.


                 Fossil Energy Research and Development

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), 
     including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 
     and equitable interests in any real property or any facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for 
     the hire of passenger motor vehicles, the hire, maintenance, 
     and operation of aircraft, the purchase, repair, and cleaning 
     of uniforms, the reimbursement to the General Services 
     Administration for security guard services, and for 
     conducting inquiries, technological investigations and 
     research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 
     disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social 
     and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 
     $708,801,000 to remain available until expended of which 
     $166,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from ``Clean Coal 
     Technology'', and of which transferred amounts $108,000,000 
     is available to continue a multi-year project coordinated 
     with the private sector for FutureGen, without regard to the 
     terms and conditions applicable to clean coal technological 
     projects, and of which the remaining $58,000,000 is available 
     for carbon sequestration research and development: Provided 
     further, That no part of the sums herein made available shall 
     be used for the field testing of nuclear explosives in the 
     recovery of oil and gas: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of Energy is authorized to accept fees and contributions from 
     public and private sources, to be deposited in a contributed 
     funds account, and prosecute projects using such fees and 
     contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State, or 
     private agencies or concerns: Provided further, That revenues 
     and other moneys received by or for the account of the 
     Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of 
     products in connection with projects of the Department 
     appropriated under the Fossil Energy Research and Development 
     account may be retained by the the Secretary of Energy, to be 
     available until expended, and used only for plant 
     construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-sharing 
     entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing contracts or 
     agreements.


           Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kline of Minnesota

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

       Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Kline of Minnesota:
       Page 18, line 10, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $142,000,000)''.

  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce 
funding for the fossil energy research and development account in this 
bill by $142 million. These funds appropriated in this account go 
toward research of oil, gasoline, coal and natural gas.
  Funding this account at $709 million, as in this bill, would be a 
19\1/2\ percent increase over last year's appropriation amount and 20 
percent higher than what was requested by the administration.
  This massive increase in spending is aimed at research of oil, coal 
and natural gas. With energy prices rising, our research dollars are 
better spent by going toward alternative and diversified energy sources 
like nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower and others.
  You may be interested to know that some of the research projects 
funded by this account include: a submersible-deployed micro-drill for 
sampling of shallow gas deposits, ultra-lightweight cement, and an oil 
and gas resource assessment of the Russian Arctic.
  Given the record profits being made by oil, gas and coal companies, 
the research of oil and gas resources of the Russian Arctic should be 
done and paid for by those oil companies, not by American taxpayers who 
have already paid for it at the pump.
  A half a billion dollars in Federal funds appropriated to this 
account, as was the case last year, should be more than enough for the 
government's share of this research.
  Any additional funding, and I'm talking about funding over the half a 
billion dollar plus what's already in last year's bill, any additional 
funding should be borne by the private sector.
  My amendment would save the taxpayers $142 million and remove that 20 
percent increase in spending on fossil fuel research.
  Solutions to our rising energy prices are not found in a massive 
increase in deficit spending, and we've been talking a lot about 
deficit spending today.
  Not only does this bill have a 20 percent increase in spending for 
fossil fuel research, it contains a $1.3 billion increase over last 
year's Energy and Water appropriation.
  It seems that this appropriation bill is another example of 
ballooning Federal spending and increasing Federal deficits to be paid 
for by ever-higher taxes.

[[Page 16264]]

  We know it's been discussed today that the Federal budget that was 
passed by House Democrats earlier this year does indeed include the 
largest tax increase in American history. It would raise taxes by at 
least $217 billion. We're looking for ways to reduce spending, modest 
ways. That's all that these appropriation bills allow us. We can't 
address the massive spending that comes from entitlement spending, but 
we can get at sensible ways to control the spending in these 
discretionary funds.
  My amendment is a step in the right direction. Let's save the 
taxpayers $142 million and remove this huge 20 percent increase in 
spending for fossil fuel research.
  There have been proposals to put price controls on oil companies. I 
vehemently oppose those, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask 
them to put some of those profits back into this essential research and 
development, take the burden off the taxpayers. Let's in a bipartisan 
way support this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and 
would observe for the House that, again, I am not in total disagreement 
with some of the assertions and points that he has made.
  The fact is, there is no silver bullet as far as solving the energy 
problems we face today and in the future. He is absolutely correct. 
That is why the subcommittee has significantly increased funding for 
biofuels. That's why the subcommittee significantly increased funding 
for vehicle technology. That's why the subcommittee increased funding 
for other types of renewables. The gentleman references solar and wind, 
for example. That's why there's an increase in the hydrogen account. 
That's why there's an increase as far as maximization of power produced 
with hydroelectric facilities.
  And so what we're trying to do is to strike a balance, and again 
getting back to my earlier comments about quantity and quality, we are 
concerned and spoke about it in the bill language, as well as the 
report language, about the fossil fuel program. I certainly, for one, 
absolutely believe that we need to do more on the issue of capturing 
CO2, and we have done that in this bill. We need to do more 
as far as in sequestration of that particular gas, but we have to do it 
intelligently.
  The fact is, a FutureGen program that has been initiated under the 
Department of Energy, from my perspective, took a very bad turn in the 
road as people continue to look at adding bells and whistles, and we 
had a colloquy on that particular issue earlier in the day as well.
  I would point out that FutureGen, according to the committee report, 
needs to be refocused as an integrated gasification combined cycle 
plant with carbon capture and sequestration and drop the ambiguity of 
other, less critical research components. The committee believes that 
by streamlining the design to demonstrate these factors, critical goals 
can be reached in a more timely and fiscally prudent fashion.
  So what we're trying to do in the bill is to have a broad range of 
new energy sources accelerated through increased funding. We have done 
that with fossil but have not done so blindly. We want to make sure 
that that money is spent wisely, given the fact that nearly 50 percent 
of this country's electricity is generated today by coal-powered 
plants. I absolutely believe that we should pursue this research and 
would reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, although I believe it is of 
value in making sure we question how we spend our money.
  I'm concerned that coal provides over 50 percent of our energy source 
in America. In this bill, there's $108 million for FutureGen which is 
creating energy from coal without emissions; $73 million for the other 
clean coal power initiative; and some $376 million has been recommended 
for the core research and development program, much of that done at the 
National Energy Technology Research labs, some of which are in my 
district, and others in West Virginia and Oregon and around the 
country.
  We have a 250-year supply of coal under our Nation's soil. 
Conversely, other parts of the world that have oil will run out long 
before we are out of coal.
  We have to crack the code in understanding how to create electrical 
energy out of coal without emissions. It is a monumental and perhaps 
one of the greatest scientific challenges of our time.
  If we're able to do this, we'll be able to create the electrical 
energy and the power we need to power our factories, to light our homes 
and run our office buildings. Without this, we will continue to be 
subject to the whims of countries involved with OPEC who manipulate the 
price of our energy every day.
  A report done this year through MIT called the Future of Coal stated 
that we need perhaps billions to deal with this issue of finding out 
how to create energy out of clean coal. It is an important investment 
and one that we cannot lag on, one that we have to continue to work on.
  I certainly encourage all of us to look at ways we can watch for any 
waste involved with how this money is spent on every level in 
appropriations; however, I ask that this be one area, where America has 
abundant supplies of coal, we make sure that we continue to mine our 
coal because it's one of the few ways that we can do so and create 
energy without having to worry about the whims of terrorists and OPEC 
states.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, most of the $142 million proposed as an 
increase in the account would support research and development of 
carbon capture and sequestration technology. No matter what energy 
future one believes in, fossil fuels will play a significant role. This 
increase would fund the R&D that we've simply got to do to isolate the 
carbon and store it to reduce emissions.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  One of the things that we have to understand that we're talking about 
today on this floor, we're talking about a lot of different kinds of 
security. We're talking about energy security. We're also talking about 
economic security. But really the bottom line we're talking about is 
jobs in America.
  No doubt that energy is a major issue in our country. Our energy 
dependence becomes a problem, is continuing to be a problem, but what 
we have to do is go about this in a way that makes sense.
  And when we look at, yes, we need to look at additional research in 
certain areas and additional expenditures in other areas and nuclear, 
and the gentleman from Florida brought that point forward, the 
gentleman brings forward the fact that we're increasing things like 
that by 20 percent. That would be really good if we were spending 
surpluses, but in fact we're not spending from surpluses, and what 
we're talking about is deficit spending and what we're talking about is 
an economic future for our young men and women.
  Because you see what we're on the floor here today trying to do. My 
colleagues and I are trying to save the American taxpayers some money, 
because we have a leadership on the other side of the aisle that's on a 
spending spree. They think they have surpluses that they're spending, 
and in fact we're not.
  In fact, we've got a $23 billion increase. We have got these ``funny 
money'' accounts where we're going to come up with the money from 
someplace. We all know where that money is coming from. That money is 
going to come from the American taxpayers because they've already gone 
on record to say that we're going to pass the largest tax increase in 
American history. And the way they're going to do that is they're going 
to tax the rich people.

[[Page 16265]]

  Well, let's talk about the tax structure in this country today. For 
example, who are the rich people? We've got 1 percent of the top wage 
earners in this country already paying 33 percent of the taxes. Now, 
the next level up, the top 5 percent, they get to pay 54 percent of the 
taxes, and the top 10 percent get to pay 68 percent of the taxes.
  Recently, the Tax Foundation brought forth a point that I think most 
of us knew, and that is, that three out of every five, that's 60 
percent, of America's highest income-bracket payers are small business 
people. Let me repeat that. Three out of every five of the people who 
are in the upper bracket, which is the bracket that they want to tax, 
are small business people.
  And what do small business people do? Well, they just do something 
that's extraordinarily great for America. They create jobs. In fact, 
they're the largest creator of jobs in this country. And what we did is 
back in 2003 we said, you know what, we want small businesses to create 
more jobs, make more economic security for our young people, and so we 
lowered the taxes.
  And what happened? Well, something wonderful. We created 7.8 million 
new jobs in America. And you know what creating 7.8 million new jobs in 
America did for us? Well, number one, we have the highest home 
ownership rate in the history of this country.

                              {time}  1615

  More people own a home today than any other time in the history of 
this Nation. Guess what, more people are employed than any other time 
in the history of our Nation.
  What we have to do, the Speaker of this House stood up on the day 
that she was sworn in and said, we listened to the people. I don't 
think they were listening. If they thought the American people were 
saying we want more spending and more taxes, I think they 
misunderstood.
  If the American people said anything, it is they want a government 
that's less, that takes less of their money, spends less of their 
money, lives, spends their money like government spends their money 
like the American people have to, they have to spend within their 
limits.
  Yes, I will like a 2 percent increase in this and a 2 percent 
increase in that, but the truth of the matter is, we can't afford it. 
If we continue on this trend of higher taxes, bigger spending, we are 
going to see these job numbers begin to talk.
  So when you talk about we want more energy-efficient cars, let me 
tell you, if we don't have anybody that can afford cars in America 
because they don't have jobs, then what do we need energy-efficient 
cars for?
  Let's be sensible about our policy here. We are making a sufficient 
amount of commitments to many of these initiatives, but we have to do 
it in a commonsense way. We have to do it in a way that says, you know 
what, a 2 percent increase or 3 percent, maybe this program should be 
eliminated, because this program is not providing any dividends for the 
American taxpayers.
  We measure, around here, what we are doing about our problem by how 
much money we spend on it. Quite honestly, that's how we got in the 
situation of these large deficits is because we keep throwing money at 
problems instead of standing up here on the floor of this House and 
debating these issues and talking about what is in the best interest of 
the taxpayers.
  I commend the gentleman from Minnesota on his amendment and urge 
passage.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I read a sign almost every day, they are out in 
hallways all over, from the Blue Dog Coalition, and as of today, it 
says today's U.S. national debt, $8.807 trillion; your share, $29,000. 
There's some of us all the time we have been in the House been trying 
to do something about that. We have been trying to bring down the 
deficit. We have been trying to with our own party, the Republicans, 
with the Democrats now in the majority, get spending reined in.
  Also, in our Natural Resources Committee, as well as other committees 
around, we have been trying to find answers to our energy problem, 
because, let's face it, we're funding our enemies, people that want to 
see us, have damage done to our way of life, if not destroyed.
  So how do we get around this energy debacle where we keep using 
fossil fuels that keep funding our enemies? I heard a chairman say a 
moment ago, there is no silver bullet. I couldn't agree more. We need 
every single aspect of energy, all of the alternative energies, all of 
the energy sources we have, that includes drilling the Outer 
Continental Shelf and areas where it would be safe to do so. It 
includes drilling in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in 
Alaska, and here we've got $142 million that is in issue here.
  As the saying goes, $142 million here, $142 million there, before 
long, we are talking about real money. People in our hometowns, they 
understand, this is a lot of money, may not be to some of us up here in 
Washington, but, as we have seen recently, as we have seen recently the 
last couple of weeks in Natural Resources, people keep wanting to study 
things, let's study this.
  We were ready to go on a biomass program. In the energy bill marked 
up last week, we are going to back up 10 years and have another study 
on that. We have these programs ready to go, and we keep wanting to 
back up and have more studies done.
  What we really need to do is just move forward. Some of these 
studies, when left to the private sector, they are going to recoup 
their money and their profits. Let them pay for these things. They are 
making all these profits. Why should we use taxpayer dollars to do 
that?
  So we have coal that if the bill becomes law that was passed out of 
Resources, it's going to make it harder to utilize the coal we have. 
All these different alternative energy sources are available, and we 
keep wanting to use money to study them.
  What occurs to me, when I hear there is no silver bullet, is not only 
do I agree that there is no silver bullet solution, but I keep feeling 
like, because we keep appointing studies and keep wanting to spend 
taxpayers' hard-earned money to study things, instead of just going 
ahead and producing, that the silver bullet may be in the Chamber 
that's pointed to our Nation's collective head here.
  It's time to quit studying. It's time to move forward, it's time to 
use money for purposes that are not those that should be done by the 
private sector, and then we can get back to money.
  Then, lo and behold, all those folks have been saying we really don't 
want to raise taxes even though it looks like it's going to be the 
largest tax increase in American history. All those who say we don't 
want to raise taxes, it's this $142 million here, $142 million there. 
Before you know it, we may even be able to lower taxes even further.
  So I will encourage my colleagues, let's quit studying, let's quit 
spending money that could be going back to taxpayers if we are not 
going to need it for something more pressing, quit studying, start 
producing and then that silver bullet won't be aimed at our head.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you to the chairman and the ranking member of 
this committee as we debate a very important piece of legislation in 
the Energy and Water appropriations bill.
  I would like to talk specifically about an issue that is vitally 
important to literally hundreds of thousands of people in Minnesota, 
South Dakota, and Iowa. The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is a 
unique water project that I am hopeful will receive the appropriate 
funding as the Energy and Water appropriations bill moves forward.
  This Lewis and Clark water project, when completed, will provide 
safe, reliable drinking water to over 300,000 people in roughly 5,000 
square miles of South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota. The project will 
move water from the Missouri River into those areas to provide safe 
drinking water and the ability of those communities to grow 
economically.

[[Page 16266]]

  Minnesota is called the Land of 10,000 lakes. Unfortunately, they are 
not equally distributed. For example, in Rock County there is not a 
single natural lake. The lack of water has a profound impact on 
economic development. Businesses are reluctant to locate or expand 
because of the lack of reliable water.
  I literally have communities that I represent that cannot permit a 
single new home to be built until someone moves out because their water 
shortages are that severe. Seventeen of the 20 local municipalities 
that are participating in this project, and I repeat on this and say it 
very carefully, have prepaid $87 million of their local share of the 
expenses in order to keep inflationary costs at a minimum. 
Additionally, all three States involved, Minnesota, South Dakota and 
Iowa, have committed to prepay on the project as well.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government is the partner that's lacking. 
My constituents, the people of South Dakota and Iowa, clearly 
understand expenditures of Federal dollars for investments are not 
necessarily wasteful. If the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System 
receives its full $35 million in requests this year, this project will 
be completed by 2018. However, if we are funded at the level President 
Bush has requested in his 2008 budget, we will not see completion until 
past 2051.
  The 300,000 people of Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa can't wait 
that long. Previous Congresses have created a significant budget 
crisis. I hear my colleagues mentioning that, and they're absolutely 
right. We spent at deficit records. We created a national debt that is 
staggering, but we cannot be penny-wise and pound-foolish.
  The longer we take to provide appropriate Federal funds, the more 
this project is going to cost, and it is already being built. It is 
already being prepaid, and it will produce significant economic gains 
for us.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to 
make sure this project is appropriately funded.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Before I begin, let me just say I concur with the gentleman from 
Minnesota on his priorities that he is setting forth, and I cannot 
honestly say that I am familiar with each and every aspect of the 
provisions that he is raising there; but from his testimony before the 
House right now, they seem to at least rise to the level of 
significance, especially when you go to the concern of making sure that 
people need to have adequate drinking supply. So I appreciate him 
coming to the floor and making that point.
  I think the gentleman's point coincides with the point that I wish to 
make right now in support of the gentleman's amendment that is on the 
floor before us right now, and that is that it's incumbent upon this 
House and this body to set priorities. The American public asks no less 
of us, inasmuch as we are spending their hard-earned tax dollars. The 
American public has seen the misapplication of setting of priorities of 
this House in past administrations and past Houses in the past.
  The American public has been outspoken when they saw, with regard to 
what happened with Katrina, and the infamous case of buying of FEMA 
trailers, literally thousands of them, that were then set on land and 
never used for their rightful purposes. The American public was 
outraged when they said the priorities were not appropriately spent 
with their tax dollars in that instance.
  Likewise we were outraged when they heard about the proverbial 
``bridge to nowhere.'' Again they asked were not priorities set as to 
where their tax dollars go when it comes to transportation purposes.
  Again, finally in the area of earmarks, and the latter point raises 
the earmarks. When the American public hears about the litany of 
earmarks that come out of both this House and Senate as well, the 
Cowgirl Hall of Fame and other such things, again the American public 
asks are priorities not set on these matters, again, with their hard-
earned tax dollars.
  Well, the American public spoke this last November and at least this 
side of the aisle heard them loud and clear. We must set appropriate 
priorities when it comes to the American tax dollars.
  Unfortunately, unfortunately, the priorities that seem to be coming 
from the other side of the aisle in the majority of cases are not the 
appropriate priorities that the American public would set for 
themselves. Priority number one from the other side of the aisle is a 
budget which raises taxes, the largest tax increase in U.S. history 
upon the American family.
  Priority number two from the other side of the aisle appears to be an 
increase in spending with little or no regard to accountability or 
cutting spending in any areas. We see that in this case.
  When I hear the arguments made, both pro and con in this bill, I am 
taken aback. All this amendment simply does is to say that the American 
taxpayer dollars should not be there and spent to subsidize Big Oil.
  We had similar language in legislation last year. I know I supported 
it saying that the American taxpayer, in light of oil now being sold at 
over $60 a barrel, should not be forced into a situation anymore to 
support Big Oil in coal industries when it comes to these things 
through tax credits and tax cuts. I supported those, saying the 
American public in that regard.
  But, now, today, when we have a Member, Congressman Kline, saying 
let's at least rein in, let's at least set some priorities as to where 
our energy dollars should go, let's go to those areas, as the gentleman 
here said, perhaps some who support carbon capture issues; let's have 
some of those dollars, as a Member from the other side of the aisle 
says, go to renewable energy resources, whether it be wind, water or 
geothermal or et cetera. Let those dollars go to those areas, but let's 
set the priorities of those dollars to go specifically to those areas 
and not on extraneous purposes, as we saw in this bill.
  Congressman Kline gave a couple of examples that really just threw me 
when I heard them once again. The American public must really scratch 
their head, as I did, when they say, should we be giving, as 
Congressman Kline said, given the record profits being made by oil, gas 
and coal, the research of oil and gas resources of the Russian Arctic 
should be done and paid for by those oil companies and not by American 
taxpayers. This amendment simply goes to make sure that occurs.
  Likewise, again in the Arctic area, submersible deployed microdrill 
sampling, ultralight cement and oil and gas resource assessments in 
that area. Who should be paying for that? The American public?
  We already pay for that when we go to the pump each time. Shouldn't 
it be the oil companies who should make it a private investment and not 
the American tax borrowers? This amendment simply says let's set those 
priorities, let's reduce spending on those areas and make sure that we 
have the dollars from the American public to spend on those other 
areas, be they renewable energy or otherwise.

                              {time}  1630

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Jones of Ohio) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pomeroy, Acting Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2641) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the

[[Page 16267]]

fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________