[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16491-16533]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2008

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

                              {time}  1248


                     In the Committee of the Whole

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


                      Departmental Administration

                     (including transfer of funds)

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


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Space

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Space:

[[Page 16492]]

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The chairman recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. SPACE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering this bipartisan amendment with 
Congressman Aderholt to restore funding for the ARC, Appalachian 
Regional Commission, to $65 million in this bill. This amendment brings 
the Commission's funding up so that it's equal to the President's 
request in the previous year's funding level.
  The Appalachian Regional Commission is very important to my district 
and many other districts from New York to Mississippi. The Appalachian 
Regional Commission is a model for Federal economic development 
initiatives, and has been a responsible steward of the Federal funds it 
has received over the years. For example, in fiscal year 2006, across 
all investment areas, each dollar of ARC funding was matched by $3.14 
in non-ARC public project funding, and each ARC dollar invested 
leveraged $11.55 in private investment in ARC projects over time. This 
restoration of funds will be offset by a $30 million reduction to the 
Department of Energy's administrative account.
  I understand that the Appropriations Committee must make difficult 
decisions this year. However, over the last 10 years, funding for the 
ARC has remained level, at around $65 million, and the region continues 
to receive less Federal assistance per capita than the rest of the 
country. Additionally, the House of Representatives had voted to 
authorize the ARC at levels much higher than $65 million.
  The 410-county region still faces a complex set of economic and 
social challenges, and will need continued support from Congress. 
Without basic infrastructure, economic development and improvements in 
the overall quality of life, the Appalachian region will continue to 
lag well behind the rest of the Nation.
  I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment to restore 
funding for the commission to levels equal with the President's request 
and the current funding level for this program.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Congressman 
Space's amendment, which is of course funding for the ARC, Appalachian 
Regional Commission, in this year's Energy and Water appropriations 
bill.
  Many Americans may not be aware that this was a program that was 
established back in 1965. ARC was created to address the persistent 
poverty and the growing economic despair of the Appalachian region, 
which is an area that extends from southern New York to northeast 
Mississippi. At that time in 1965, one out of every three Appalachians 
lived in poverty. Per capita income was 23 percent lower than the U.S. 
average, and high unemployment and harsh living conditions had, in the 
1950s, forced more than 2 million people in that area to leave their 
homes and seek work in other regions.
  Even today, ongoing changes in declining sectors of the economy, such 
as manufacturing and textiles, exacerbated by globalization, changes in 
technology, and the recent downturn in the economy have hit this region 
very, very hard. It has threatened to reverse a lot of the economic 
gains that were made in these communities over the past several years. 
For an area that has suffered economically for so long, we can't allow 
this to happen.
  By funding the ARC at least at last year's level, $65 million, we 
will ensure that the people and the businesses of Appalachia have the 
knowledge, have the skills and the access to telecommunications and the 
technology to compete in a technology-based economy.
  As has been mentioned here by Congressman Space, this restoration of 
funds will be offset by $30 million for the Department of Energy's 
administrative account. ARC has been a responsible steward for the 
Federal funds that it has received over the past several years. For 
example, in fiscal year 2006, across all investment areas each dollar 
of ARC funding was matched by $3.14 in non-ARC public project funding, 
and each ARC dollar invested leveraged $11.55 in private investment in 
ARC projects over time.
  The 410-county region still faces a complex set of issues. However, 
this program has made a difference, and we are seeing results.
  Over the last 10 years, funding for the ARC has remained level at $65 
million. And the region continues to receive less Federal assistance 
per capita than the rest of the country. Additionally, in the past, the 
House of Representatives has voted to authorize the ARC levels at the 
higher level of $65 million.
  I would like to thank Congressman Space for his assistance in this 
program, and also Chairman Visclosky for his attention to this matter.
  Mr. SPACE. I thank the gentleman from Alabama and would yield 1 
additional minute to the Congresswoman from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. I want to thank Mr. Space for offering his amendment to 
something that I believe in very much, and that is more funding for the 
Appalachian Regional Commission.
  The ARC encompasses all 55 counties of the State of West Virginia and 
is an important resource to the lower economic communities across 
Appalachia. Some of the good news is, since the ARC was created, 
poverty in the region has dropped from 31 percent to 13 percent, and 
more adults have high school diplomas. The percentage rate has risen to 
70 percent. Over 400 rural primary health care facilities have been 
built. And in my district, three of the counties of my district have 
recently been removed from the list of economically distressed 
counties. We have already seen that ARC is a solid investment for our 
government by leveraging both private and public dollars.
  The Appalachian region still lags behind the Nation in water and 
wastewater facilities, health care and poverty. And the ARC is a major 
part of continuing to address these challenges in my district and 
across the region. Now is not the time to cut ARC funding. This 
amendment will simply bring ARC funds back up to last year's level and 
the President's requested level of $65 million.
  I look forward to bipartisan support of this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
gentleman, Mr. Space, to express my appreciation for the concern he has 
for his constituency, as well as the gentlelady from West Virginia, and 
my colleague on the committee, Mr. Aderholt, who also raised an 
amendment in the full committee.
  Again, I appreciate their work and their concern for the people in 
economic development of not only their individual constituencies, but 
their region, and certainly would pledge to continue to work with them 
to address their concerns.
  Having said that, I would ask my colleague from Ohio to withdraw his 
amendment.

                              {time}  1300

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


                  Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Foxx

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


[[Page 16493]]

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Ms. Foxx:
       Page 25, line 14, after the second dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $27,950,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 19, 2007, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding for the 
Department of Energy Departmental Administration to the fiscal year 
2007 level. This amendment would save $28 million, reducing the account 
from $304.782 million to $276.832 million, the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level.
  The Energy and Water appropriations bill is already $1.1 billion over 
the President's request. This amendment would reduce the funding in the 
Departmental Administration account, putting it at last year's enacted 
level. The bill provides a 10 percent increase for DOE's Departmental 
Administration account.
  There has been at least $105.5 billion in new Federal spending over 
the next 5 years authorized by the House Democratic leadership this 
year. In enacting the largest tax increase in American history, the 
Democrats' budget allows for $28 billion in spending over that of the 
President's budget request.
  This amendment is designed to save the taxpayers almost $30 million, 
just a small dent in the unnecessary increases in Federal spending this 
year, which is being fueled by huge tax increases. We've constantly 
heard on the floor, around this bill especially, the problem of 
increased rules and regulations. What happens when you have additional 
administrators? What you are going to get are more rules and more 
regulations.
  We are constantly adding administrative costs to all of the Federal 
Government. I think we can make a very small dent, but an important 
dent, in our deficit spending by cutting these funds. This should not 
hurt at all the administration of the Department and the administration 
of programs.
  If we were going to put in additional funding anywhere, we ought to 
put that money in for direct services and not for administration. We 
hear more and more about too much administration in the education 
field, but I think we have it all over the Federal Government, State 
governments, local governments.
  We are talking about deficits, not surpluses. If we had a huge 
surplus in this country, we might be wanting to talk about spending 
additional money. But we don't need to be doing that. This will benefit 
the taxpayers all over this country. And what we need to do is to cut 
spending, not increase spending. That is what we heard all last year 
from the majority party. I am surprised that we aren't continuing to 
hear it this year. When they are in charge, they want to spend lots of 
money.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this, 
which would save $28 million and make a small dent in our deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce DOE's Office 
of Administration by over $27 million. The bill provides $304 million, 
a decreased amount under the President's request.
  The Departmental Administration account funds the guts of the 
Department; the chief financial officer, human resources, the general 
counsel, the chief information officer, all are integral to the 
functioning of the $25 billion operation of the Department of Energy.
  What I am particularly concerned about relative to the gentlewoman's 
amendment is that the bill has initiatives that would not be funded as 
a result of the reductions.
  There are funds provided in this bill for additional legal counsel to 
expedite energy efficiency standards for appliances. There has been a 
significant accumulation of backlog for this work. We can expedite this 
work and save energy in this country.
  The bill also funds a review by the National Academy of Public 
Administration for the contracting in human resources process. 
Mentioned yesterday during debate, the Department of Energy has been on 
a high-risk list with the GAO for 17 years. The purpose of the 
subcommittee of having the National Academy of Public Administration 
come in is to get DOE off so that they stop wasting and mismanaging 
money. And I would hate to see that function not occur because of the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge rejection of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's 
amendment. And while they say miracles never cease, this is living 
proof. Despite my frustrations with the leadership of the Department of 
Energy, and they are great, I am rising to oppose the gentlewoman's 
motion to cut the DOE's Departmental Administration and make a case for 
why they need the level requested by the President.
  For too long, DOE has been stuck in a quagmire of mismanagement, 
operating devoid of leadership and vision. But cutting funds that are 
critical to the successful management of our Nation's energy programs, 
especially at such a critical time in terms of our energy security, I 
think is a foolish time to do that. A cut of close to $30 million to 
this account will cost far more in terms of our Nation's energy needs 
than the good message it might send.
  So don't be misled by the gentlewoman's argument that cutting $28 
million in discretionary funds in this account will reduce the deficit. 
It might. But I think it will do the opposite. It will undermine DOE's 
efforts to oversee climate change research, improve the use of 
renewable energy, and provide national scientific leadership.
  But DOE, I hope, is listening today and gets the message. They need 
to get their act together, and I agree with the fact that they don't 
have their act together. But I don't think this is the way to get their 
attention at this moment. But if I thought it was, I would agree with 
the gentlewoman, because I believe the intent here is more than just to 
cut the deficit. It is to wake them up to get some reasonable 
management in that quagmire that is over there and just answers to the 
other body's needs all the time for additional spending. So it is 
unfortunate, but I do oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would yield back my time and urge a 
``no'' vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      Office of Inspector General

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Matheson

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

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

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

[[Page 16494]]

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

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                National Nuclear Security Administration


                           Weapons Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $5,879,137,000 to 
     remain available until expended.


                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense, defense nuclear nonproliferation activities, in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, $1,683,646,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                             Naval Reactors

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


                      Office of the Administrator

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


                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense 
     environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes 
     of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 
     et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any 
     real property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not to exceed three passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only, $5,766,561,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $463,000,000 shall be transferred to the ``Uranium 
     Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund''.


                        Other Defense Activities

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense, 
     other defense activities, and classified activities, in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, and the purchase of not to exceed twelve 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $604,313,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the 
     funds provided under this heading in Public Law 109-103, 
     $4,900,000 are transferred to ``Weapons Activities'' for 
     planning activities associated with special nuclear material 
     consolidation.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

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

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

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

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. First let me thank the chairman and ranking 
member for their work on this bill, which provides a bold vision for 
moving this country forward along a path of clean energy independence 
and limits spending on new nuclear weapons.
  My district has a particular interest in this bill, as I represent 
the scientists, employees, and community of Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, also known as LANL. The scientists at LANL are the best in 
the world and they work with a commitment to both national security and 
the pursuit of scientific knowledge. In recent years, there have been 
administrative and managerial difficulties, which we all agree are 
unacceptable. Nevertheless, the mission of the lab and the workers are 
the two things that I will always fiercely defend.

[[Page 16495]]

  Stockpile stewardship, the core mission at LANL, certifies to the 
President every year that the nuclear stockpile is safe, reliable and 
accurate. My amendment will help ensure the stability of that mission 
and thus the rigor of our Nation's security, while also building a 
bridge to the future.
  It will restore funding to the President's request for three specific 
areas, including upgrades to the Road Runner computer; the readiness 
and technical base and facilities at LANL; and the scientific campaign. 
In so doing, I propose to reduce spending in the office of the NNSA 
Administrator.
  The Road Runner computer upgrades will increase LANL's supercomputing 
capability and keep the lab's ability to conduct computer simulated 
weapons testing at state-of-the-art. Additionally, the capacity can 
also be used for advanced non-weapons materials research, and thus 
broaden the scientific capability of the lab. The amendment restores 
proposed reductions in Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities at 
LANL, which would grind to a halt any safety improvements in the lab's 
infrastructure.
  Finally, the science campaign is at the heart of stockpile 
stewardship. It sustains our Nation's capabilities and understanding of 
nuclear weapons, which is essential to protecting our Nation. It also 
allows us to keep our treaty commitments and not perform nuclear 
testing.
  I believe that the cuts in this bill to our Nation's premier national 
security laboratory hurt the core mission and inhibit the laboratory's 
ability to transition toward the necessary work on energy independence.
  LANL must prepare for the future, which includes diversification of 
its mission. As Chairman Visclosky has recognized in this legislation, 
securing our Nation's energy independence is one of the most critical 
areas of our national security. LANL has an important role to play in 
this regard.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment, and would hope that at the end of this debate he 
consider the withdrawal of his amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for Mr. 
Udall and also appreciate the fact that he has made a significant 
contribution to the full Appropriations Committee and also understand 
the circumstances that he is presented with.
  Contrary to what I think the belief of some Members are, we have made 
cuts in this bill, but they were thoughtful cuts, given a number of 
considerations. I would point out that the means by which the gentleman 
is trying to secure additional weapons money would cut the 
Administrator's office and potentially terminate most of the Nation's 
nonproliferation programs.
  The nuclear nonproliferation programs are one of the few activities 
at the Department of Energy that are staffed, managed and run by 
Federal employees. In the end, Federal employees tend to be generally 
younger professionals with fewer years of public service and would bear 
the brunt of any Federal reduction in force.
  Secondly, I wish that our national labs, which are treasures and do 
great work, would also be as adamant and as concerned about their 
security as they are about their budget line. I would ask to submit 
additional materials in the Record, but would point out we had serious 
security breaches at Los Alamos in December of 1999, June of 2000, 
November of 2003, May of 2004, July of 2004, in 2005, in 2006. There 
was an incident in January of 2007 that made Time Magazine. This has 
got to stop.
  But the breach that causes me and should cause every Member here the 
most heartburn is what happened to a gentleman by the name of Shawn 
Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter worked at Los Alamos, Mr. Carpenter was 
concerned about security at Los Alamos, and Mr. Carpenter went to the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation to express his concern. He did not go 
to a local newspaper. He went to the FBI, and he was terminated. There 
was a trial relative to that wrongful termination. And I would point 
out that the gentleman who fired Mr. Carpenter, and he subsequently won 
a judgment of $4.6 million for wrongful termination, got a bonus. He 
got a bonus after he fired Mr. Carpenter, and Mr. Carpenter went to the 
FBI to protect the secrets of this Nation as far as our nuclear 
security.
  The third concern I have is some of these moneys would find their way 
back into the proposal made by the administration that we have 
eliminated in this bill for a new nuclear weapon. As we have 
extensively pointed out in the committee report language, since the 
termination of the Cold War, since regional conflicts such as Kosovo, 
since 9/11, we have not developed a new nuclear strategy. This is not a 
time to build a new nuclear weapon.
  We have significant cost overruns and time overruns on three 
buildings we were told were needed for stockpile stewardship. None of 
them are done. All of them are over budget. Now let's take a turn in 
the road. I am adamantly opposed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition also to the 
gentleman's amendment. This is not personal between me and the 
gentleman, and I hope it wouldn't be when I get over too, because I am 
really opposed to this amendment, and I am really in support of the 
chairman on this, because this is something we have worked on for a 
long period of time.
  I know the administration and some Members, those from New Mexico, 
are not pleased with the cuts to the weapons program. I have heard from 
the other body, and they may claim these funding reductions somehow 
threaten our national security.
  I also recognize it is politically convenient to move money from a 
so-called bureaucracy in Washington to what is portrayed as a field-
level purpose. Sorry, folks, but I don't buy either of these arguments, 
and I strongly believe this bill puts our nuclear weapons programs in 
the proper perspective.
  I have been a member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for the 
past 5 years, and I have personally visited every single nuclear 
weapons lab, plant and site in DOE's complex, and I honestly can't tell 
you how much our national security is protected, whether we fund the 
nuclear weapons account at $6.5 billion, $6 billion, or even $5.5 
billion. And I certainly can't tell you what benefit we will gain by 
adding $192 million back to the weapons program and devastating NNSA's 
management office, as the gentleman proposes.
  I also sit on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, as does my 
chairman, and we both are all too aware of the funding shortfalls in 
the conventional defense area to believe that nuclear weapons are 
somehow a higher security priority.
  So after years of looking at this from virtually every angle, I can 
tell you definitively that what we need is a national strategy for 
nuclear weapons and a clearly defined set of military requirements that 
is derived from that strategy. Then, and only then, will NNSA be able 
to lay out what a modern weapons complex, capability of producing a 
specified number of reliable replacement warheads will look like.
  In the meantime, we have many nuclear nonproliferation priorities 
that need to be addressed. This will have real security benefits today, 
not at some weapons design lab tomorrow.
  This bill balances our national security needs by making the prudent 
recommendations on weapons we have discussed and by putting an 
additional $398 billion above the President's request towards defense 
nuclear nonproliferation activities. These funds will play down the 
risk of nuclear smuggling by improving programs such as the elimination 
of weapons-grade plutonium production; international nuclear materials 
production and cooperation; second line of defense and cooperation; 
MegaPorts; MegaAirports;

[[Page 16496]]

and global coordination among domestic security agencies, such as DHS 
and foreign governments.
  Furthermore, these additional funds will support the implementation 
of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank, a priority for security experts 
ranging from National Security Advisor Steve Hadley to former Senator 
Sam Nunn to the leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
  Getting our national security priorities right is what this bill is 
about, and it is a rational approach I wholeheartedly support. But 
let's call it what it is. This amendment isn't really about national 
security. It is all about jobs at these DOE weapons facilities.
  In particular, the Los Alamos National Laboratory is in the 
gentleman's State of New Mexico. This lab has held a preeminent place 
at the Federal trough for years, and now fears the loss of jobs because 
of this bill's recommended funding levels. Los Alamos has the largest 
number of employees of any DOE field site, with employees who receive 
the highest level of compensation, and a lab that has the highest 
overhead rate of any DOE operation. All told, Los Alamos receives close 
to $2 billion a year from our bill, plus additional reimbursement of 
work from other agencies. And I cannot tell you what we get in return 
for that investment.
  I do know that Los Alamos has chronic management problems, and I can 
read a long litany of security failures, safety accidents and costs and 
schedule overruns brought to you by the 9,000 highly paid folks at Los 
Alamos. Don't let anyone tell you that these problems are a thing of 
the past. DOE just informed us this week of yet another security 
screwup at Los Alamos, and this is after a number of others.
  Given this track record, do we really believe adding another $192 
million will improve security? I would argue our national security 
might actually be improved by cutting 1,800 jobs from a facility that 
can't seem to manage sensitive information. We would have a lot less 
people to watch.
  The bottom line is that gutting the office of the NNSA Administrator 
by reducing its funding by almost half will undermine any chance of the 
NNSA actually managing the weapons and nuclear nonproliferation 
programs. Does the gentleman expect us to believe that jobs in New 
Mexico are more important than the overall national management of these 
sensitive national security programs?
  So I am, you can tell, opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I 
believe the priorities are misguided. The weapons program has no clear 
strategy of a way forward. And this bill report addresses the 
shortcomings with its prudent funding recommendations and bold 
direction.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this ill-conceived amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), chairman of the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee of Energy and Commerce.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment, which would fund new nuclear weapons development by taking 
$193 million from the National Nuclear Security Administration 
nonproliferation account.
  NNSA plays a very important role in helping us to secure nuclear 
weapons, ``loose nukes,'' as we call them in committee, around the 
world. The program helps secure nuclear material in Russia and 
elsewhere.
  This funding includes $412 million for the installation of radiation 
portal monitors at over 200 border crossings in Russia, the Baltic 
States and the Caucasus region, $293 million more than the President's 
budget.
  Rather than commit billions of dollars to manufacturing another 
generation of nuclear weapons, our existing nuclear arsenal can be 
sustained using the life extension program managed by NNSA. If we cut 
$193 million from it, there will be no way we can maintain this life 
extension program.
  The JASON Report, a panel of independent nuclear weapons experts, 
reported last year that the existing plutonium pit will remain reliable 
for 100 years, far longer than the 45 or 60 years.
  We don't need new weapons. Let's put the money where it will do the 
most good, to secure ``loose nukes'' around the world. Support the 
chairman in this position, and do not support the Udall amendment.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, in closing, first of all, the 
NNSA is the problem, not the scientists. NNSA was put there to bring a 
better security situation, and security has deteriorated since they are 
there, and that is why I take the money away from the NNSA 
Administration.
  Secondly, I know we can't legislate on an appropriations bill, but I 
think it would be very appropriate to take a look at the role that NNSA 
should play in this whole situation, if not return to the Department of 
Energy managing the nuclear complex. They did a better job.
  The vast majority of scientists at Los Alamos work on a broad variety 
of subjects, not only weapons activities. They stand ready to conduct 
the research that is most essential to our Nation. However, we need to 
make sure that these top scientists can do their jobs and have the 
support they need to work on other missions.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this amendment that 
will restore a portion of the fundmg which is critical to maintaining 
our commitment to safety and security of our nuclear stewardship 
responsibilities.
  I deeply regret that the Majority has decided to cut these programs 
and irrevocably harm our nuclear weapon programs and fail to maintain 
our nuclear stockpile. Our responsibility is to protect the American 
people and ensure that our weapons programs operate in a responsible 
and secure manner.
  These important programs are our national deterrent against rogue 
nations who would threaten us with weapons of mass destruction. In 
addition, these cuts will erode our non-proliferation efforts 
worldwide, as our allies would have to consider expanding their own 
nuclear arsenals to make up for our reductions.
  The cuts proposed today will cut nearly 40 percent of the funding for 
our Nuclear weapons programs operated at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory. I would ask the sponsors of these cuts if they believe that 
the threats from rogue states and aggressive dictators have reduced by 
40 percent? If not, why are we cutting our ability to defend ourselves 
by 40 percent? These cuts will damage our ability to retain good 
scientists, preserve the knowledge base of our laboratory, and our 
preparedness to respond to our future nuclear needs.
  In addition, these cuts decimate the nation's Stockpile Stewardship 
Program. Since we have stopped testing nuclear weapons, our country 
relies on Los Alamos to ensure that our strategic weapon capabilities 
are safe, reliable and secure. Failure do so abdicates our 
responsibility to the protect the American people.
  These programs are critical to the mission of Los Alamos and critical 
to America. We shouldn't just simply fold up our tent and allow these 
programs to be deeply cut or nearly eliminated and I urge all my 
colleagues to stand up and support this amendment and furthermore 
support restoring the full funding to these important programs.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I also want to state what my 
amendment does not do. It does not provide any funding for the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead (RRW) program or any new weapon development. It 
does not take specific funds from non-proliferation activities, 
activities which I support. And it does not, regardless of the 
misunderstanding or misstatement of others, in any way make it easier 
for terrorists to acquire nuclear materials. In fact, my amendment 
would actually restore funding cuts for security measures that keep our 
nuclear materials safe at our national laboratories.
  I understand that in an amendment that moves this much money there 
can be great concern, and there should be great concern. Yet, it must 
be understood exactly what is and is not happening--and the entire 
purpose, the entire substance, of this amendment is meant to help 
protect the core missions of the labs. Ultimately, this will accelerate 
a diversification of their missions in order to better meet the 
national concerns and priorities that we will continue to face in the 
future.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, today this body debated the 
Energy and Water

[[Page 16497]]

Appropriations bill for the upcoming fiscal year. During debate, I 
offered an amendment which would have added $192 million for the 
purpose of supporting and diversifying the core mission of our Nation's 
laboratories. Although my amendment did not pass, I remain strongly 
committed to the idea that a diversification of the mission of our labs 
is essential and must take place now if we are going to continue to 
face--and solve--the major national security challenges of the future.
  The debate of the amendment brought up several misconceptions and 
misunderstandings, and I want to take this time to reiterate the 
purpose and substance of the amendment.
  First, some said that my amendment would increase ``funding for new 
nuclear weapon development.'' This is simply not true. My amendment 
would return spending approximately to current levels--thereby not 
providing for the funding of new weapons. As I stated in my previous 
remarks, my amendment would target funding for three programs, all of 
which support securing and maintaining our Nation's existing weapons 
and the core mission of the laboratory. In fact, two of the three 
programs--the Road Runner Supercomputer and the Science Campaign--help 
ensure our current weapons supply remains safe, reliable and accurate 
through computer simulations of weapons in the place of real weapons 
testing. In the past, I have expressed great concern with the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, and I continue to believe that 
numerous important questions regarding this proposal need to be 
answered before it proceeds. I doubt our need for a new weapon.
  Second, some said that my amendment could ``terminate most of the 
Nation's nonproliferation programs'' and that opposing the amendment 
would ``stop terrorists from acquiring nuclear materials.'' This is 
also not true. According to the committee report, $75 million of the 
Office of the NNSA Administrator is set aside for the Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation program. My amendment would have set total funding for 
the Office of the NNSA Administrator at $215 million, more than enough 
to continue to fund the nonproliferation program. Further, my amendment 
did not in any way stipulate that the funding would come from the 
nonproliferation program. It should be noted that current funding for 
the Office is $340 million. Clearly the $415 million provided in this 
bill is a substantial increase for all programs. Even if my amendment 
had been adopted, the agency still could have completed these important 
tasks.
  Third, some said that my amendment indicated that ``jobs in New 
Mexico are more important than the overall national management of these 
sensitive national security programs.'' Certainly representing the 
constituency needs of the Third Congressional District of New Mexico is 
my primary concern. And, yes, those who would lose their jobs under 
this bill--technical, academic and support jobs in which many have 
spent decades--are worried. But let me be absolutely clear about this: 
Neither I nor a single member of the Los Alamos community would for a 
moment rather protect these jobs than protect the safety and defense of 
our national security programs. The men and women who work at Los 
Alamos take great pride in their mission and service to our Nation. 
They understand the unique undertaking of the lab, and it is my honor 
to represent them.
  Mr. Chairman, I held a telephone town hall with the community of Los 
Alamos on this issue. During the town hall an informal poll question 
asked whether people support a diversification of the lab's mission. 
Eighty-four percent of the respondents--over half of whom were 
employees at LANL--supported such a diversification.
  I do not believe that we must continue with a status quo mission for 
our national laboratories. Nor do I believe that creating a national 
security strategy in a policy vacuum without any regard for the needs 
of the future is the way to proceed. There is an absolute need, and, in 
fact, a great opportunity, for our national laboratories to diversify 
their missions and expand the scientific research being conducted in 
order to meet the challenges we are facing. From energy independence to 
health care to climate change modeling, we have the capacity for this 
diversification. I hope that in the coming months and years I will be 
joined by others who believe in this cause.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Rogers) for a colloquy.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hobson) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, in the report accompanying H.R. 2641, the subcommittee 
commends the nuclear physics research community for its efforts to 
rescope the next generation rare isotope research facility in light of 
the current fiscal constraints. However, the report contends that ``the 
rare isotope beams will involve modifications to existing accelerators 
rather than the construction of a new rare isotope accelerator, RIA.''
  As you know, National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, located 
at Michigan State University, is the leading rare isotope facility in 
the United States and needs an upgrade to stay on the leading edge of 
rare isotope science. Michigan State's upgrade proposal includes the 
reuse of several major components of the existing NSCL. However, it 
does not intend to use its existing cyclotron accelerators, as they 
would not be suitable for the beam strengths contemplated by the new 
facility. As a result, if one were to interpret this language 
literally, Michigan State would not be eligible for any potential DOE 
funded facility since it is not proposing ``modifications to existing 
accelerators.''
  Mr. Chairman, I am assuming this is a problem created by ambiguous 
wording and does not represent a substantive shift in the position of 
the subcommittee. Would you concur with my assumption, sir?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, as a Notre Dame grad, I would like to 
interject myself into this colloquy. I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan for his interest in this area.
  The gentleman is correct. The subcommittee's objection was to praise 
the nuclear physics community's adaptiveness in adjusting its 
facilities plan to our current budgetary realities. It was not meant in 
any way to define or alter the scope of the proposed facility or limit 
Michigan State's ability to compete. The subcommittee remains 
steadfastly committed to ensuring that DOE user facilities are subject 
to full and open competition and will monitor the process very closely 
to make sure that all potential competitors are treated fairly by DOE. 
Again, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and bringing this matter 
up.
  Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I want to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee for his work on this issue. You have given me a whole 
renewed look at Notre Dame University.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

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

                    POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS


                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

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


      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of electric power and 
     energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary 
     services pursuant to section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the

[[Page 16498]]

     southeastern power area, $6,463,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 
     3302, up to $48,413,000 collected by the Southeastern Power 
     Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to 
     recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 
     credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain 
     available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
     purchase power and wheeling expenditures.


      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

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


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

       For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, 
     section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7152), and other related activities including conservation 
     and renewable resources programs as authorized, including the 
     operation, maintenance, and purchase through transfer, 
     exchange, or sale of one helicopter for replacement only, and 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed $1,500; $201,030,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $191,094,000 shall be derived from the 
     Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That 
     of the amount herein appropriated, $7,167,000 is for deposit 
     into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account 
     pursuant to title IV of the Reclamation Projects 
     Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding the provision of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to 
     $258,702,000 collected by the Western Area Power 
     Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 and 
     the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to recover purchase power 
     and wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as 
     offsetting collections, to remain available until expended 
     for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
     expenditures.


           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

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

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         salaries and expenses

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

                General Provisions--Department of Energy

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

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

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


               Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 16499]]

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

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Neugebauer:
       Page 37, strike lines 9 through 19.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike funding for 
the Appalachian Regional Commission. This commission is a perfect 
example of Ronald Reagan's belief that the nearest thing to eternal 
life we will ever see on this Earth is a government program.
  Established more than 40 years ago, this commission has evolved into 
an inequitable and duplicative Federal program, yet it receives $35 
million in next year's budget.
  Although most of ARC funding is spent building State roads, the 
agency also spends tax dollars on water programs, housing projects, 
business development, and health care.
  However, this funding is only available to 13 States. In other words, 
this is a bracketed bill. The ARC is a redundant layer of bureaucracy. 
Several other Federal agencies have similar missions as the ARC. For 
example, an Appalachian community applying for an economic development 
grant would be eligible to use 20 other programs across five other 
agencies and receive funding for the exact same purposes. For every ARC 
program, it is duplicated by another Federal program.
  According to the Department of Agriculture's Web site, USDA's Rural 
Development Agency supports such essential public facilities and 
services as water and sewer systems, housing, health clinics and 
promotes economic development. In other words, under the current 
Department of Agriculture programs, these communities could apply for 
these grants instead of having a separate bracketed amount of money.
  At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there is a rural 
housing and economic development program within the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development.
  Departments of Transportation and Commerce, for example, and even the 
Department of Defense, have programs whose mission is to help rural 
communities.
  Therefore, if we were to eliminate the ARC, applicants could still 
apply for countless other grants from other agencies that are already 
providing funding for rural communities.
  I represent a rural community, and so I understand the unique 
challenges facing rural America today. However, as we work to help 
communities overcome their challenges, we should do it in such a way 
that we are not wasting taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, there is a role and 
a need for the ARC to assist distressed counties in Appalachia with 
local economic development and to provide infrastructure requirements.
  Of the original 223 distressed counties, 74 remain in that category; 
and clearly the mission of the ARC has not yet been fully realized. The 
fact is the committee did reduce the administration's request for this 
account by $30 million and has targeted all of the funds in this bill 
for those distressed counties. So I would be in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hobson).
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to 
eliminate funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. I have been 
against the Appalachian Regional Commission since I was on the Budget 
Committee in 1995. But I do appreciate the chairman's cutting the 
funding back because we always have a problem dealing with the Senate 
on this issue.
  But let me tell you, for all of the heartburn we have had over 
congressional earmarks and administration earmarks, I would point out 
that funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission basically provides 
earmarks designated by the Governors of 13 Appalachian States. If we 
are cutting our earmarks, then we should be reducing these as well. The 
one thing we should not do is delegate our decision-making to the 
authority of these Governors, no matter how well intended the purposes 
are.
  And I have to tell you, we have been throwing this money into these 
counties for all these years, and they are still at these levels. It 
doesn't do any good. It just goes down the tube. We should do programs 
that really help the quality of life in these regions and help them 
move out, rather than doing these little projects that keep them in the 
poverty level. So I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I was going to point out exactly the 
point that the gentleman made about the earmarks. There is $300,000 for 
central Pennsylvania's largest kitchen, $20,000 to renovate an 
abandoned hospital for a possible visual arts center, $7,000 to place 
16 poster-size vignettes in culturally significant areas in 
Connellsville, Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, economic development is important to all America. It is 
important to rural America; but what is also important to America is 
fiscal responsibility, keeping taxes lower.
  If we keep spending money the way we are spending money now, we are 
going to have to raise taxes. In fact, the Democratic budget passed 
what is going to be the largest tax increase in American history. The 
government doesn't have an income problem; the government has a 
spending problem. When you look at the revenues over the last few years 
because we lowered taxes and let the American people keep their money 
and let the American people invest and let small businesses create jobs 
all across America, what happened? Well, the economy got better. What 
happened to tax revenues? Tax revenues are increasing at a fairly 
substantial rate.
  What we have to do is cut spending so spending is growing at a slower 
rate than the revenues. That is the only way we are ever going to be 
able to balance our budget. I urge support of my amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, despite the eloquence and persuasiveness 
of my ranking member and good friend, Mr. Hobson, I remain opposed and 
would ask the membership to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. SPACE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
  For four decades now, the Appalachian Regional Commission has worked 
to bring Appalachia to economic parity with the rest of the country.
  The statistics are devastating. Twenty percent of Appalachian 
households still do not have access to community water systems. Sixty-
two percent of Appalachian counties have a higher unemployment rate 
than the national average.
  I want to make one thing clear. The Commission's programs are NOT 
duplicative. They complement Federal activities and extend the reach of 
those programs into the most challenging parts of Appalachia.
  The Commission acts as a key financial partner in attracting private 
and non-profit investment to the region. In Fiscal Year 2006, every 
dollar of ARC funding leveraged $3.14 in other public funding and 
$11.55 in private investment.
  The modest amount of money we spend on this program is fiscally 
responsible and enormously beneficial to the taxpayer. The President's 
own Budget requests that the Commission's funding level continue at $65 
million.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. Unfortunately, my colleague from Texas has failed to closely 
examine the benefits the Appalachian Regional Commission has provided 
numerous economically distressed counties in the region since its 
establishment over 40 years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, the ARC has enhanced the region's economic progress by 
improving living conditions, enhancing the employability of the 
workforce, and strengthening the region's basic infrastructure.
  Simply put, the numbers speak for themselves. Since its creation, the 
ARC has reduced the number of severely distressed

[[Page 16500]]

counties in the region by more than 65 percent, cut the poverty rate 
from 31 percent to 15 percent, and created 1.6 million jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, my upstate New York district has been plagued with 
struggling local economies for quite some time. Population exodus, 
significant job losses in the manufacturing sector and slow economic 
development have all contributed to the downturn in economic prosperity 
in the region.
  These communities are in dire need of exposure to new innovative 
technologies--such as alternative energy projects--and attracting 
private investment to spur economic activity and improve their quality 
of life. The ARC helps our communities do just that. The ARC provides 
the framework and the guidance for these communities to begin to move 
towards sustainable economic growth.
  Mr. Chairman, six counties in my upstate New York district have 
experienced success as members of the ARC. The Village of Sherburne, NY 
in Chenango County is a great example of how small ARC grants are 
extremely helpful in leveraging additional funds from State, local, and 
private sources for economic development initiatives that create jobs. 
A $200,000 grant from the ARC for the enhancement of aging water 
infrastructure in Sherburne--a problem that is plaguing many States in 
the Northeast--was able to leverage close to $4 million in State and 
local community investment.
  Mr. Chairman, for each one dollar of ARC funding invested, it 
leverages $3.14 in other public funding and $11.55 in private 
investment. Now that sounds like a responsible and wise investment of 
taxpayer dollars.
  It would be unwise and irresponsible to deny the people in 13 States 
in the region the funds to help them achieve socioeconomic parity with 
the Nation. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose 
the amendment to zero-out funding for the ARC. Mr. Chairman, I also 
strongly urge my colleagues to support my freshman colleague from 
Ohio's amendment to fully restore the President's FY08 budget request 
of $65 million for the ARC in this bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1345

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

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

                        Delta Regional Authority

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

                           Denali Commission

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


               Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

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

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
       Page 38, strike lines 7 through 13.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 19, 2007, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would eliminate funding for 
the Denali Commission. This amendment would save taxpayers $1.8 
million.
  In fiscal year 2007, the Denali Commission received $49.5 million. 
The President's request in this fiscal year for 2008 is $1.8 million 
and the bill provides that entire amount.
  When we look at the State of Alaska, it has a very low tax burden. 
Alaska has no State income tax. It has the lowest taxes as a percentage 
of per capita income of any State in the country. Also, Alaska is 
actually a relatively wealthy State in terms of per capita income.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would simply indicate that I would be happy to 
accept the gentlewoman's amendment and if my colleague the ranking 
member would have an observation, I would invite him to.
  Mr. HOBSON. I am also willing to accept the amendment.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Reclaiming my time, I thank both the gentlemen and 
look forward to our efforts to save the American taxpayers $1.8 
million.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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


                      Office of Inspector General

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

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

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

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
                                Projects

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

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Schmidt

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Schmidt:

[[Page 16501]]

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 19, 2007, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment that I am offering, and plan to withdraw, is based on 
legislation I have introduced with Congressmen Wilson and Space, H.R. 
2282, the Nuclear Waste Storage Prohibition Act.
  Currently, there are 11 sites around our Nation that are under 
consideration for hosting one or more facilities related to the Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership, called GNEP. It's an initiative that is 
being studied as we speak. The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant 
located in my district in Piketon, Ohio, is one of the 11 sites. The 
other sites include locations in Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, 
New Mexico, Illinois, Washington and Idaho. Everyone representing one 
of these sites or an area nearby has a strong interest in how this 
important initiative proceeds.
  The point of my amendment is to ensure that none of these GNEP sites 
that have been under consideration only become a de facto storage site 
for spent nuclear fuel. My amendment prohibits DOE from using funds to 
transfer spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste to any site 
unless it is a site where the reprocessing facility for this material 
is either under construction or has been completed.
  In addition, my amendment also ensures the final end product after 
the fuel has been recycled is moved offsite as quickly as possible, 
either to the next stage in the nuclear fuel recycling process or to 
Yucca Mountain, which remains our Nation's long-term and permanent 
storage facility.
  DOE has not made any statements to suggest that any of those 11 sites 
would ever become a de facto waste storage site. On the contrary, DOE 
and this Congress have made clear over the years that the final end 
product will be permanently stored at Yucca Mountain. However, based on 
feedback from my constituents, who generally speaking are very excited 
by the potential opportunities of this initiative, there are some 
concerns related to long-term storage. I am sure I am not the only one 
who has heard these concerns, and Congress must assure these 
communities that their worst fears will never become a reality. This 
amendment would help accomplish this goal.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition. I understand the 
gentlelady's concern and, with the observation that she is going to 
withdraw her amendment, have a number of points to make but will simply 
enter those into the Record.
  Proceeding with construction of nuclear spent fuel recycling 
facilities at this time is premature.
  Geologic capacity exists at Yucca Mountain to accommodate much more 
high level waste than currently permitted by legislation.
  Spent fuel recycling is not economically viable given affordable 
fresh supplies of uranium fuel.
  On-site storage of nuclear spent fuel is safe for 50 to 100 years, so 
there is no rush, but there could be cost savings from removing spent 
fuel from the nine decommissioned nuclear reactor sites.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's withdrawing 
of the amendment. At the time this proposal came up, I was the chairman 
of the committee and we worked together on this with the current 
chairman. GNEP was a proposal that was put out for people to raise 
their hand if they were interested in the project. It was never 
intended that the project be a permanent disposition site. So I think 
your people should understand that it was only an interim site. I would 
recommend that the record show that it is only an interim site that is 
intended if they are successful in receiving a GNEP award.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I appreciate the ranking member's comments. I would 
like to continue to work with you so that we can put some language into 
the record that would assure the folks in the 11 States where GNEP is 
being pursued that this is indeed an interim storage facility and not a 
permanent storage facility.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 19, 2007, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My amendment would cut one-half of 1 percent spending from the Energy 
and Water appropriations bill. I am offering this amendment to this 
bill to make a cut of just one-half percent of the overall funding of 
the bill.
  With the national debt at an all-time high, Mr. Chairman, of $8.8 
trillion, Congress is leaving a very sad legacy for the next 
generation. I believe that we in Congress must take responsibility for 
this burden by establishing Federal spending priorities and setting 
spending caps for some programs and eliminating unnecessary spending 
for others. When you look at this amount of money, when you look at 
this huge amount that we are spending, I believe that it is very 
reasonable to ask for this modest cut. We owe it to the taxpayers whose 
money we are spending to make a serious commitment to fiscal 
responsibility and we need to exercise fiscal restraint.
  The simple truth is that the money we stand here today to spend is 
not our own. The funds that we are appropriating come from the hard-
earned incomes of families across this country. The families in my 
district in eastern Colorado need money for groceries, to buy gas for 
their cars, to educate their children, and I think that when we are 
here on this floor talking about this issue, we ought to think about 
the families in Colorado and around the Nation that work very hard to 
make ends meet.
  I know that there are worthy programs in this bill and I commend the 
work of the chairman and the ranking member, but I think we need to 
realize that this fiscal responsibility is what we should be exercising 
right now. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and really to 
demonstrate to the American public that we remember where this money 
comes from as we spend it and make our decisions here in this Chamber.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 16502]]


  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong objection to the 
gentlelady's amendment and would point out a couple of things. One, as 
we stated in opening debate, we very carefully looked at all the 
accounts in this bill and, among other things, made cuts in over 57 
programs to make sure that funds were available for positive programs 
that make a difference in people's lives. One of those areas is in the 
area of energy and specifically the high cost of gasoline for consumers 
across the country.
  One of the things that we did do is to add money in this legislation, 
$130 million above the President's request, to provide $503 million for 
new vehicle technologies and for biofuels. Another area as far as the 
energy crisis was the change in the overall request relative to climate 
change and, again, funds were made available for such things as 
research, development and demonstration of new energy technologies in 
solar, geothermal, wind, hydropower, fossil and nuclear energy as well 
as research, development and demonstration of conservation technologies 
for buildings and industries as well as the deployment of energy 
conservation through weatherization in Federal buildings.
  There are a lot of very positive things that we have done in this 
legislation to advance a positive energy agenda. The gentlewoman's 
amendment would be hurtful to those efforts and I am opposed to her 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1400


             Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico

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

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 19, 2007, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have offered an amendment, 
and I will tell my colleagues I intend to withdraw it at the end of my 
presentation, but there is an issue that has been festering between two 
agencies that I think Congress needs to go ahead and take action to 
resolve.
  This amendment ensures that the Department of Energy Office of 
Science and the Office of Biological and Environmental Research spends 
$37 million on medical isotope research in an account that is known as 
Medical Applications and Measurement Science. This would restore the 
funding to FY 2005 levels.
  Medical isotopes are used extensively in imaging technology for the 
diagnosis and treatment of cancer, heart disease, and several 
neurological disorders. The program that DOE runs funds basic research 
in new diagnostic and therapeutic applications using nuclear isotopes. 
This research has identified new metabolic labels and imaging detectors 
that have helped identify colon cancer, brain tumors, bone cancers and 
many other cancers.
  In addition, this research would fund new radiopharmaceuticals to 
attach to specific cancer cells and treat them and prevent metastasis.
  Congress reduced this program in fiscal year 2006 by $23 million 
because of pressures on the other part of the DOE budget, but also 
directed them to transfer the program over to the National Institutes 
of Health, particularly the National Cancer Institute. The NIH did not 
pick up this research; and in a recent meeting with scientists who do 
this research, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who is the director at NIH, said NIH 
does not do this type of research; NIH cannot do this type of research. 
They don't have the expertise in the nuclear materials required, and 
also that this research must go forward.
  The new director of Office of Biological and Environmental Research 
has said that he understands the need for DOE to conduct this research 
and has said he could provide the funding within his own budget within 
this research at the fiscal year 2005 level if directed to do so by 
Congress. The National Academy of Sciences is currently conducting a 
review of this program, and I think this program does need to go 
forward.
  The funds in this particular program, in the last year that it was at 
this level, FY 2005, funded on the basis of competitive grants programs 
and research projects in 40 different locations, largely universities, 
some national laboratories, most of them in the State of California, 
although also at Case Western University in Ohio in New York, and 
across the country, but it is critical research using 
radiopharmaceuticals and targets, enriched targets, that really only 
the Department of Energy works with. For that reason, that's the 
appropriate place to do this research.
  Now, for technical and procedural reasons, I understand that there is 
a legitimate point of order against this particular amendment that's 
legitimate, but I did want to at least raise this issue and say we need 
to sort this out, that the appropriate place for this nuclear research 
is actually in the Department of Energy rather than at the NIH, and the 
NIH has said, no, we don't have the expertise to do it.
  We need to sort this out to continue this highly successful research. 
I strongly support it, and I hope that we would be able to work with 
the Senate in conference to make sure that this program is 
appropriately funded through the Office of Science.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. HOBSON. I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns, and we will work 
to try to address them in conference.
  I also appreciate her withdrawing the amendment.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

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

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

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

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 19, 2007, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.

[[Page 16503]]


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


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

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Bishop of New York:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review 
     the application for the Broadwater Energy proposal, dockets 
     CP06-54-000, CP06-55-000, and CP06-56-000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am joined in offering this 
amendment by Mr. Courtney and Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Let me start by thanking Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson 
for their work on this bill. I think it's a first-rate appropriations 
bill, and I particularly want to thank them for their efforts to fully 
fund Brookhaven Laboratory in my district.
  This amendment is a very straightforward amendment. It would prohibit 
any funds in this act from being used by FERC to advance the pending 
application of a floating storage and regasification unit known as 
Broadwater in the middle of Long Island Sound.
  We offer this amendment for several reasons. Let me cite three. The 
first is that there are serious and debilitating environmental impacts 
associated with this project. Serious environmental concerns have been 
raised by the EPA, by the New York State Department of Environmental 
Conservation, the United States Department of the Interior, the 
National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
  The second is that there are significant safety and security concerns 
associated with this application, and even the Coast Guard, which would 
be charged with securing this facility, has indicated that a much more 
full public discussion needs to take place in order to determine who is 
going to provide that security and who will fund it.
  Lastly, this is the only means available to me to represent my 
constituents. My constituents are overwhelmingly opposed to this 
application, to this facility, and yet current law vests in the FERC 
final authority to grant licensing for this project without any input 
from local government at all.
  This is the only means by which I as a Member of Congress can 
exercise the will of the constituents I represent.
  So I urge my colleagues to join me and Mr. Courtney and Ms. DeLauro 
in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Courtney of Connecticut.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bishop-
DeLauro-Courtney amendment.
  It's unfortunate that it's necessary for the United States Congress 
to intercede into a pending matter before the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission. However, despite repeated warnings from independent, 
scientific, and public safety analysts that this application for a 
floating liquid natural gas facility in Long Island Sound needs more 
investigation, FERC has refused every request for more time to study 
the implications of this facility in one of the most populated areas of 
the United States.
  The need for more time was highlighted again just a few weeks ago 
with the release of a 43-page report by the Government Accountability 
Office that looked at the public safety consequences of a terrorist 
attack on a tanker carrying liquid natural gas. GAO reviewed what would 
be the effect of a liquid LNG spill and explosion.
  The bottom line: more research is needed. Experts disagreed on what 
would happen if there was a cascading failure of an LNG tanker, and GAO 
recommended that the Department of Energy study this issue more 
thoroughly.
  GAO's report should settle the question of whether applications such 
as Broadwater should proceed. If DOE determines from an expert opinion 
that a

[[Page 16504]]

cascading failure would cause a hazard beyond 1 mile, then this 
application is fatally flawed, literally. At some point it is incumbent 
on the Congress of the United States to act upon the recommendations of 
the GAO, which is an agency funded and created by us as an independent 
branch of government.
  When GAO says that it is premature to conclude that LNGs are safe in 
populous areas of our Nation, then we have an obligation to act on that 
advice. This amendment accomplishes that goal. I strongly urge its 
passage.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. We have 28 million people living within 50 miles of the Long 
Island Sound. It contributes more than $5 billion to our economy 
annually. It provides environmental, recreational, and economic 
opportunity for our communities.
  It is an estuary designated by Congress for its national 
significance. Our responsibility is to keep major and potentially 
dangerous industrial product out of our fragile sound. That includes 
the LNG Broadwater facility. This would install a floating vessel, 
roughly the size of Queen Mary 2, 10.2 miles off the Connecticut coast, 
9 miles off the Long Island coast.
  It calls for the installation of a 25-mile pipeline in the middle of 
prime territory for lobstering and fishing. It creates an exclusionary 
zone, prohibits any vessels from coming within a certain distance of 
the facility itself and delivery tankers. It would fall to the Coast 
Guard to maintain our security.
  Their funds are stretched thin. Instead of being able to manage 
fisheries, conducting lifesaving operations, and dealing with port 
security, we will be diverting resources to these tankers. It would 
propose a new security risk.
  I commend Mr. Bishop and my colleague, Mr. Courtney. This amendment 
gives DOE the time to address these concerns.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
but let me first begin my discussion by expressing my sincere respect 
for the gentleman who has offered the amendment, Mr. Bishop, as well as 
the two speakers who have followed him in support of it, particularly 
my colleague on the Appropriations Committee, the chairwoman, Ms. 
DeLauro.

                              {time}  1415

  I would point out to the body that this is the second FERC issue that 
has been brought up on a regulatory matter before the subcommittee on 
the floor. We have had other inquiries from Members that have not 
reached this level that are very similar in substance in other areas of 
the country. I would not pretend to deny that there is a problem, but I 
am not competent to sort through that fact as I am not a regulator 
myself, to make a determination, and do not believe that this is a 
venue to make those particular determinations.
  The amendment before us undoes the Natural Gas Act for the orderly 
review and decision making process for energy infrastructure and limits 
energy development efforts. FERC's consideration of applications to 
site energy facilities does not imply that the applications will be 
granted, or if granted, will not require appropriate environmental 
protection measures. Moreover, all FERC authorizations are subject to 
judicial review.
  I do believe that FERC's application process ought to be able to run 
its course. And again, I regret that I have to stand in objection to 
the amendment but trust that my colleagues understand the impetus for 
that.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. I want to associate my comments with the chairman. I have 
the utmost regard for all the Members who spoke on this, but I do 
oppose the amendment and join with the chairman.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Bishop/Courtney/DeLauro Amendment.
  The amendment would unfairly target a single liquefied natural gas 
project, ``Broadwater,'' that is mid-way through a very extensive 
Federal and State regulatory process. Interfering with this regulatory 
review would undermine the very process that is designed to provide a 
thorough assessment of environmental, safety, security and energy 
supply impacts of the project.
  I understand the desire of the proponents of this amendment to ensure 
the ultimate security of their constituents, but I hope this amendment 
is not simply a red herring to utimately stop further efforts to site 
LNG terminals across the U.S.
  LNG has a record of relative safety for the last 40 years, and no LNG 
tanker or land-based facility has been attacked by terrorists. Since 
September 11, 2001, the U.S. LNG industry and federal agencies have put 
new mesures in place to respond to the possibility of terrorism. 
Federal initiatives to secure LNG are still evolving, but a variety of 
industry and agency representatives suggest they are reducing the 
vulnerability of LNG to terrorism.
  Here in America we only have two options to increase our supply of 
natural gas to meet our energy needs--we can build more LNG import 
plants and we can produce more gas offshore. There is no alternative to 
natural gas in many cases.
  Unfortunately, the opponents of both options are often the same 
people--they oppose LNG and they oppose drilling for gas. Without 
increased exploration or LNG facilities, where will we receive the 
energy America needs in the immediate future?
  Natural gas is the cleanest energy source we have besides solar or 
wind, and it is a critical fuel for industrial facilities and is a 
feedstock for the petrochemical industry that makes plastic.
  If we cannot produce natural gas here, we are going to have to import 
gas to heat our homes and import more plastic in bulk or in consumer 
products. That hurts our balance of trade.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Bishop-
Courtney-DeLauro Amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


             Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

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

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 19, 
2007, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed each 
will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the Chair, and I also want to thank the 
chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member. I have great 
respect for their work, particularly the ranking member, who is a 
friend, colleague and actually neighbor of mine. I appreciate his work 
over the years here in the United States Congress.
  This amendment is pretty simple. It takes spending levels in the bill 
back to the fiscal 2007 year levels; represents a $1.3 billion savings 
to taxpayers and families across the country.

[[Page 16505]]

  Mr. Chairman, government spends too much. And I said ``government.'' 
I didn't say Republicans or Democrats. Both parties need to work on 
this area when it comes to public policy.
  But today the Federal Government spends $23,000 per household. 
Excessive spending hurts America. Deficits hurt America, and a rising 
national debt hurts America.
  You don't have to take my word for it. Our staff went through and we 
looked at the Budget Chairman, Mr. Spratt's committee, some notes from 
their committee hearings on the budget. And I want to just quote from 
Dr. Edward Gramlich, former Governor of the Federal Reserve Board. He 
said this: ``Deficits represent negative public saving, which tends to 
drive down national saving. Lower national savings means a smaller 
stock of capital for the future, which reduces the productivity and 
wages of future workers. Budget deficits lead to less economic growth 
and a lower level of economic activity than would otherwise be the 
case.''
  Excessive spending leads to deficits, leads to lower economic growth. 
Excessive spending leads to tax increases, all bad for our growing 
economy, all bad for American families.
  And it's particularly, I think, important to recognize why this is so 
crucial that we get a handle on it as we think about the marketplace we 
find ourselves in today, the changing international market.
  Just a couple of numbers. Four weeks ago the Wall Street Journal 
reported that China's economic growth rate, annual growth rate, is 10.4 
percent. Now, think about this: one billion, 300 million people in 
China with a growth rate of 10.4 percent. That's what we're competing 
against.
  There was a point in the past where elected officials could maybe 
enact policies that weren't in our best interest or weren't good for 
our economic growth. But now, because of the fact that the competition 
is so stiff, it's important that public policymakers get it right. Keep 
taxes low, keep spending under control.
  In the end, Mr. Chairman, it's not just about deficits and the 
national debt and GDP. It's about people because, in the end, it's 
people who pay taxes. It's people who have to deal with this debt and 
the deficits that we're causing by spending at these levels.
  I want to also quote from the same document from Chairman Spratt's 
committee, from the Comptroller General, Mr. Walker. He said, 
``Deficits matter for the world we leave our children and our 
grandchildren.'' Mr. Walker said this, and I quote, ``Today we are 
failing in one of our most important stewardship responsibilities, our 
duty to pass on a country better positioned to deal with the challenges 
of the future than the one we were given.'' And that's so true.
  This amendment is real simple. It's going to allow families and 
people across this country to keep more of their money to spend on 
their goals, their dreams. And it's simply taking us back to last 
year's fiscal level.
  There are all kind of families, all kinds of individuals across this 
country who are living on last year's budget. A simple, across-the-
board amendment that says we're going to do what so many American 
families have to do all the time, and we're going to live within our 
means.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we know is that 
the Federal Government does spend too much money. We all hear it from 
our constituents. They are really aggravated with the amount of 
spending that they see coming out of this town, and there is a good 
reason for that. It is because it is their money. They earn that money 
and they send it to Washington, and then there is a lot of aggravation 
with how we choose to spend their hard-earned dollars.
  And the gentleman is so correct in his amendment, moving this back to 
last year's levels.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we know is it would give a 
$1.3 billion savings for the American taxpayer, and we know that 
principles like this and operations like this work. When you go through 
spending reduction, it works.
  Our States are great labs for finding ways to find efficiencies in 
government, and there's a reason for that. It's because many of our 
States have balanced budget amendments. And many of our States have 
frozen at previous years' levels, or they've been reduced 1 percent, 2 
percent or 5 percent across the board.
  And what they have found out is that, in their operations, they can 
move in and find efficiencies and find ways to seek a savings, and 
still have the same caliber and quality of program that they have had. 
But, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that they do find is that many 
times those programs are more effective.
  So I commend Mr. Jordan for the work that he has done to find a $1.3 
billion savings to make certain that the pressure is there on these 
departments to live within their means, to try to do our best, to avoid 
what the Democrats are wanting to pass, which is the single largest tax 
increase in history, and to make certain that we give a message to our 
constituents that we have heard them and we agree with them. Government 
spends too much of their hard-earned money.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve my time at this time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Ohio for putting 
up this amendment. It's a very simple amendment that I think does well 
for us to consider in context with what we have to wrestle with, the 
consideration coming from the largest tax increase in the history of 
the United States being offered, $400 billion on the taxpayers. And I 
take it into context as I looked here with this amendment offering a 
$1.3 billion cut in spending, going back to last year's levels, and 
saying let's live within our means.
  I come from a Great Lakes State. When we talk about water, I do know 
about water. I know the impact that it can have, the impact upon all of 
our way of life.
  But I also come from a State that's struggling at this point in time 
with economic conditions that comes from too large government, too much 
spending, too much taxation. And in the process of trying to deal with 
that, going the opposite direction of where they should, they're still 
frustrating what's going on and producing unemployment rates that rival 
any in history, and frustrating Michigan from having the same type of 
impact that we see just last week talked about in the New York Times of 
a 40-State growth rate that goes on with States that not only, because 
of tax cuts and spending within their means, have seen the ability not 
only to increase some of their services, set aside rainy day funds, but 
also talk about further tax cuts. That's what we need to be doing here; 
not considering spending more in a time in our history when we ought to 
be considering what comes with the future.
  If we see a $400 billion tax increase go in place, we see a tax that 
goes on for working, a tax that goes on if you get married, a tax that 
goes on if you have a child, a tax that will go on, even if you die. 
Those are issues of great concern.
  And so to be fiscally responsible here and use an amendment that 
simply takes us back to a reasonable standard of expenditures, puts us 
in a place that we can afford and fund to do the necessary services, we 
do ourself well.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, we may only have one speaker on our 
side, so I would still reserve my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Ohio for offering this 
amendment.

[[Page 16506]]

  We're debating now on a 3.5 percent across-the-board cut to an 
appropriations bill. It's an amazing thing in Congress; with one vote, 
we can slash $1.3 billion out of an appropriations bill.
  What we're debating here is not simply a small cut. We're debating on 
whether or not the American taxpayers can depend on the Bush tax cuts 
from 2001 and 2003. We're trying to determine what kind of economic 
growth we'll have as a Nation, based on how much the government spends 
in taxes.
  This is more than a debate about spending. This is a debate about the 
size and scope of government.
  Well, let's put the facts on the table. The American Government costs 
$2.7 trillion a year. That is the largest government on Earth. And 
further perspective here: It's the largest government in the history of 
mankind.
  Now, to put this further into perspective, there are only two 
economies outside of the United States that are equal to the size of 
our Federal spending. That's Germany and Japan. And what is amazing 
about this, what is absolutely amazing about this, is that we have a 
Federal Government that's larger than most economies on Earth. In fact, 
our Federal Government spends more than the whole of China's economy.
  Now, that's simply amazing. I think it shows that, while we're 
debating on extending the Bush tax cuts, the American people understand 
that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem here 
in the United States.
  This Congress is addicted to spending. In fact, in just a week's 
time, they appropriated $100 billion. Now, that's fast work even for 
Washington, DC.
  The American people, Mr. Chairman, understand that we need to tighten 
our belt. A 3.5 percent across-the-board cut is a good start. That'll 
save $1.3 billion of the American taxpayers' hard-earned money.
  I commend my colleague for offering this amendment, and I urge its 
adoption.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
gentleman from Ohio's amendment, and I want to thank him for offering 
it.
  Today in this amendment, the gentleman from Ohio is offering American 
taxpayers a $1.3 billion tax cut on an appropriations bill. And it is 
important for everyone to understand, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment 
is a $1.3 billion tax cut for Americans because the Democrat budget 
that they have produced, which pays for these increases in their 
appropriations bill, this Democrat budget spends all that new money by 
raising taxes.
  The Democrat budget assumes that the Bush tax cuts are going to all 
go away. And by eliminating the Bush tax cuts, the effect is the 
largest tax increase in American history, which the Democrat majority 
has orchestrated in a way that they can allow it to go away without 
even having to cast a vote. The budget that the Democrats use to pay 
for these massive increases in this appropriations bill are paid for by 
the biggest tax increase in American history. And, therefore, the 
gentleman's amendment, Congressman Jordan's amendment, is a $1.3 
billion tax cut. And that is a critical point that I think everyone 
needs to make sure they understand.
  When they vote for this amendment, they are voting to cut the taxes 
of our constituents by $1.3 billion. And it is really just that simple. 
And I could not thank him enough. It is an extraordinarily important 
amendment. There are vitally important functions in this Energy and 
Water appropriations bill that need to be funded, but this increase is 
not affordable at the time of record debt and deficit, and I applaud 
the gentleman and urge Members to vote for a $1.3 billion tax cut.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
but he shouldn't really yield me all the time that I might consume 
because I might consume it all. So please inform me when I have used 
about 4 minutes, and then I might use an additional 1.
  Mr. Chairman, each of the people who have already spoken in favor of 
this piece of legislation, which would take $1.3 billion or $1.8 
billion, whichever it is, I don't remember precisely, out of the 
recommended budget, the budget that has been recommended by the 
chairman and ranking member with a unanimous vote out of the 
Appropriations Committee, each of the people who had spoken in favor of 
this amendment has made the comment that the budget resolution has 
raised taxes by the largest amount ever in the history of this country. 
Each of the Members has made that allegation.
  Each of the Members knows perfectly well that you cannot raise taxes, 
you cannot raise taxes by that mechanism; that any raise in taxes has 
to be passed by the House and the Senate in exactly the same form and 
then signed by the President of the United States. So it is simply 
incorrect, and each and every Member knows that it is incorrect that 
the budget raises taxes, raises the largest tax increase in the history 
of the country.
  The last gentleman who spoke pointed out that the adoption of this 
amendment, which would reduce this particular bill, recommended by both 
the chairman and the ranking member, by $1.3 billion, that that would 
be a $1.3 billion tax reduction. The gentleman who made that comment 
also knows that no reduction in taxes can occur except by legislation 
that is passed by both Houses and signed by the President. So, again, 
it is totally incorrect to make that allegation.
  Now, the first speaker, who has offered this amendment, has said that 
this bill spends too much. Well, I think the measure of whether a bill 
spends too much is whether we are doing what is necessary for the 
security of this country and for the well-being of the people of 
America. And I think what has been done by the chairman and ranking 
member falls very much in the point of providing for the security of 
the country and also for the well-being of the American citizens.
  I would point out that the chairman and the ranking member and the 
full subcommittee that brings forward this legislation has reduced by 
over $800 million the President's request, actually $900 million over 
the President's request, in programs that have been terminated or 
reduced, in all of those that have been terminated and reduced. Now, 
what they have done, after making those reductions from the President's 
request and in their responsibility to provide for the budget for the 
country, they have then added moneys. They have added about $400 
million in the provisions for renewable energy, which have to deal with 
solar energy, biofuel energy, nuclear energy and geothermal, wind, and 
all the other good renewable energy sources which we need desperately 
for our national security to remove ourselves from the heavy dependence 
that we have on foreign oil. So that is a place where if this amendment 
were adopted and we were to go back to the 2007 numbers, then we would 
lose that increase, that very important increase of $400 billion.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman asked to be notified when he has 
gone past 4 minutes. The gentleman has gone past 4 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
  We would lose that $400 million of very important investments for the 
security and well-being of this country.
  And I would just also like to point out that there are substantial 
increases, which the ranking member has pointed out, that deal with the 
deficits, the deficits in investments in our water infrastructure under 
the Corps of Engineers and also under the Bureau of Reclamation, those 
places where we have dams that are in need of investment that has not 
been done over recent years and investments that should be done in our 
ports in order to make our commerce go better, a whole series of things 
which the ranking member

[[Page 16507]]

had laid out very carefully in his initial remarks in relation to this 
legislation. All of those things which are increases that are in this 
legislation, part of that $1.3 billion, which would be removed, then 
those pieces of investments would thereby become unnecessary.
  So I think this legislation is right on target for securing this 
Nation and for securing the well-being of the people of America. And I 
hope that the gentleman's amendment will be rejected.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Again, I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and 
apologize to the gentleman for having his State of origin incorrect, 
especially because he is from the great State of Ohio. But I would 
emphasize that this is the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act for the coming year, and we are in an energy crisis and it 
transcends the cost of the price of gasoline at the pump. It is a true 
economic situation and crisis that we face. It is a national security 
issue that we face. My good friend, the senior Senator from the State 
of Indiana, Senator Lugar, has characterized the energy crisis we face 
as the albatross around our national security neck. It is also an 
environmental issue as far as a potential catastrophic climate change 
that will occur if we do not deal with the issue of CO2.
  This bill makes an investment in solving that crisis we face. It will 
not solve all the problems tomorrow morning, but it will put us on firm 
footing to do so in the future.
  Let's talk about vehicle technology. The bill recommends $93 million 
for hybrid electric systems, an increase of $13 million over the 
President's request. Of the increase, $10 million is for energy storage 
research and development for advanced batteries for electric, hybrid 
electric, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and $3 million is for 
independent test and evaluation of all vehicles developed in the 
upcoming demonstration phase.
  This bill also includes $49 million for advanced combustion engine 
research and development, an increase of $15 million over the 
President's request to restore funding for heavy truck engine research 
that was eliminated in the administration's request.
  It does include $48 million, $15 million over the budget, for 
materials technology research, to accelerate the development of cost-
effective materials and manufacturing processes that contribute to 
fuel-efficient passenger and commercial vehicles.
  It includes $10 million more than the administration's request for 
nonpetroleum-based fuels and lubricants evaluation to expand and 
accelerate research and development for the optimum ethanol fuel.
  And we also have an increase for technology integration of $6 million 
in this bill for vehicle technologies and deployment, formerly the 
Clean Cities Program. We have moneys in here to advance geothermal 
technology, to demonstrate cost-share industry that will allow 
accelerated research into new geothermal technologies.
  We have moneys in here for hydropower; for research, development, and 
demonstration of ocean, tidal, and in-stream hydropower energy systems. 
We have made an investment in this bill for electricity supply and 
delivery research, for applied research on semi-conductor material, 
device and processing issues, technology acceptance and technology 
evaluation.
  We have investment moneys in this bill for solar energy research, and 
the gentleman from the State of Massachusetts talked about that 
briefly, to develop cost-neutral designs and technologies to better 
integrate solar heating and lighting into building designs. We have 
made an investment in this bill for facilities to research, test, and 
demonstrate the new renewable technologies.
  It would be a mistake to change these funding levels and turn the 
clock back as far as trying to make progress to solve the energy 
problems we face in this Nation.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to associate myself with the 
gentleman's comments.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the minority whip from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am here in support of this amendment. This amendment is one of the 
things that we have to look at, one of the alternatives, to just stop 
this spending spree that we see ourselves on.
  In just over 6 months the new majority has passed and paved the way 
for over $100 billion in increased spending. We already enacted $6.1 
billion of new spending in the continuing resolution and $17 billion of 
new spending in the supplemental.

                              {time}  1445

  And these appropriations bills have over $80 billion in new spending. 
As Everett Dirksen once famously said, ``A billion here, a billion 
there, before you know it you're talking about real money.'' And here 
we're talking about $100 billion of new spending.
  Mr. Campbell's amendment only proposes that we reduce this spending 
in this particular bill to the President's level. This bill increases 
spending by $1.3 billion over last year, 4.3 percent higher than last 
year. If you add this increase to the increases already proposed and 
passed by House Democrats last week, we are spending $20.7 billion, or 
15.6 percent, more than last year. Where is all this money going to go?
  In this bill, $682 million, or a 35 percent increase, for operations 
and maintenance within the Corps of Engineers; $1 billion, or a 4 
percent increase, to the Department of Energy; $108 million, or an 
increase of 13 percent, for salaries and expenses at the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. These are excessive changes in spending that 
this bill doesn't justify.
  The only thing this amendment does is say let's go back to the 
President's level. Let's go back to an amount of money that, while it 
still provides for our immediate advances in energy and water, doesn't 
do this in a way that American taxpayers can't pay for it. And how does 
this majority intend to pay for it? The budget that would pay for it 
has, unarguably, the second biggest tax increase in American history, 
and arguably, the biggest tax increase in American history. In other 
words, there is no question that we intend to spend $217 billion more 
money that has to be raised from new taxes. And it's still an open 
question as to how close we're going to let that get to $400 billion.
  Now, this is the question: Are the American taxpayers going to be 
asked to provide 217 billion to 400 billion new dollars, or are we 
going to simply take this bill as the first step back to the 
President's level?
  This is a good amendment. This amendment deserves the approval of our 
friends. I hope our friends on both sides of the aisle, the 
conservative Democrats, the Blue Dogs, stand up with most of the 
Republicans to make this amendment happen.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I stress my opposition to the amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting Chairman. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Wynn

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


[[Page 16508]]

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Wynn:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 503. Of the amount made available for Energy 
     Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the Department of Energy, 
     $213,000,000 shall be made available for hydrogen 
     technologies as authorized by section 974 of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16314).

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


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Harman

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

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Ms. Harman:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs have 
     the ``ENERGY STAR'' designation.

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


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Berkley

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Ms. Berkley:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to administer the ``Yucca Mountain Youth Zone'' 
     website.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 19, 2007, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Visclosky 
for his assistance on this issue and Congressman Hobson for his 
agreement to accept this amendment.
  My amendment is based on a simple concept--the Department of Energy, 
or any government entity for that matter, should not be using taxpayer 
funds to ``educate'' the children of America about one side of a very 
complicated and contentious issue. The Department of Energy's Web site 
includes a section

[[Page 16509]]

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


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Conaway

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Conaway:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. It is the sense of the House of Representatives 
     that any reduction in the amount appropriated by this Act 
     achieved as a result of amendments adopted by the House 
     should be dedicated to deficit reduction.

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

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

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

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

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

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

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by complimenting the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), for showing support for 
hydropower in the base bill.
  Hydropower has long been overlooked as a source for clean energy. I 
am very pleased that this bill, and the report that goes along with it, 
support hydropower and encourage its use and its utilization.
  My amendment builds off of that effort by simply saying that the 
existing hydropower that we have should not be decommissioned at this 
point in time.
  As everybody in this body knows, we are very concerned about 
greenhouse gases, both on the Commerce Committee, where I serve, and on 
the Select Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence.
  We are looking at the danger posed to this country by greenhouse 
gases. Indeed, that is a threat to this economy, to this Nation, and to 
this world. My amendment simply says that hydropower manages to address 
that issue by producing both clean power and power which has no 
hydrocarbons whatsoever.
  Hydropower is emission-free, and it is also completely renewable; so 
therefore

[[Page 16510]]

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


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

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

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


[[Page 16511]]


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


            Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 503. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is reduced 
     by 1 percent.

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

                              {time}  1515

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

[[Page 16512]]


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

[[Page 16513]]

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

                              {time}  1530

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

[[Page 16514]]

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

                              {time}  1545

  So I tell you, Mr. Chairman, this work, the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee bill that is before us, it deals with infrastructure 
development. A 1 percent cut would begin to deny many of these 
improvements that we have, improvements that the American public have 
asked us to do because they know it is a sound investment. They want to 
make sure that commerce continues. They want to make sure that they're 
protected.
  And as Joel Hefley would probably tell me, Ed, I couldn't do it in 
the majority, I probably won't do it in the minority, because the 
American people think that 1 percent is not the proper way to go, 
because I would like to have that money that belongs to me to be 
invested in order that we protect our communities and ensure that we 
have commerce.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


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

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

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 503. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby 
     reduced in the amount of $1,130,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) and a 
Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
thank Congressman John Campbell

[[Page 16515]]

of California who originally was the proponent of this amendment. I am 
very happy to adopt this amendment because I believe that it truly 
expresses the concerns of the people of our country.
  The Energy and Water appropriations bill, which spends $31.6 billion, 
is $1.13 billion, or 3.7 percent over the President's request. This 
amendment would reduce overall funding in the bill to the President's 
request, thus saving taxpayers $1.13 billion. If this amendment passes, 
the total amount of spending in the Energy and Water bill will still be 
$175 million greater than last year.
  By enacting the largest tax increase in American history, the 
Democrat budget allows for $23 billion in spending over that of the 
President's budget request. This amendment is designed to save the 
taxpayers $1.13 billion which will reduce some of the unnecessary 
increases in Federal spending this year which is fueled by the huge tax 
increases. This is an amendment that is an across-the-board reduction 
that does not destroy, interrupt or terminate needed projects, many 
that we just heard about that are very, very worthy. But it does 
provide for our Federal administrators to reduce expenditures by 
limiting travel, delaying filling employee vacancies, postponing 
equipment purchases and other innovative and creative initiatives to 
save taxpayers' money. Even the reduction of growth is an increase of 
spending of $175 million.
  Prior to being elected to Congress, I served in the State senate of 
my home State and over and over again we would work toward across-the-
board budget cuts and each time that we were able to achieve these, we 
were able to maintain the programs to benefit the citizens of our 
State; but, indeed, the programs were not terminated, they were made 
better. I have faith in government employees that they can accommodate 
a 3.7 percent reduction without hurting recipients of worthy projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota, Congressman John Kline.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Wilson, 
for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise because we have had a debate here about how much 
money we're spending and how much we're taxing. There seems to be some 
confusion about that. We on this side of the aisle have been accused of 
having spent too much money. And, as I said in discussing an earlier 
amendment, I fully agree. The Republican majority spent too much money. 
But what we have before us is a proposal to spend even more money while 
we're getting criticism for having spent too much, and I have a hard 
time balancing those out.
  We need to get spending under control. And we've had my colleagues, 
colleague after colleague have come to the floor to propose amendments 
to make modest reductions in what appears to be runaway spending, 
billions of dollars too much. And then we've had an argument that said, 
well, we're not taxing too much because we're not going to add to the 
tax burden in 2008. I suppose that remains to be seen before the 
process is over, but I think it's undeniable that the Democrats passed 
a budget which in order to balance in 5 years results in the largest 
tax increase in American history. And as the spending goes up to make 
that match in the end, they force all of the tax cuts which we have 
fought so hard to get into place, that have spurred this economy and 
caused jobs to be created and rapid growth in the economy, all those 
tax cuts would go away, taxes would go up, and we would in fact see the 
largest tax increase in American history. So we have a huge tax 
increase, huge spending, that's not the way to see this economy grow. 
Let's take some steps to curb this explosive rate of spending and stop 
the semantic arguments here. Let's slow down this runaway spending.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Inquiry. Does the chairman have any 
witnesses at this time or any further testimony?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I simply have two speakers and would prefer to reserve 
at this moment.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, again what we're talking 
about with this particular amendment is to reduce the overall 
expenditures to the President's request, which is a reduction of $1.13 
billion. It's a 3.7 percent reduction. But actually because this is the 
request of the President, there has been an increase of nearly $175 
million. We've heard the presentation, very eloquent, a few minutes ago 
of many of the wonderful programs and projects, and when you think of 
Energy and Water appropriations, I think of extraordinarily important 
appropriations, indeed, the infrastructure of our country, it's so 
important, as to the alternative fuels, promoting the alternative 
fuels. But, indeed, I have seen firsthand in my experience working in 
public office since 1984, you can reduce and still provide for the 
services to be provided.
  I know that again in my State experience one time, we had a midyear 
budget crisis where, in fact, the State budget was reduced by 7\1/2\ 
percent and we had previously proposed that there be a budget reduction 
of 1 percent. Unfortunately, it was turned down. It was incredible 
that, indeed, with the 7\1/2\ percent across-the-board cut by people of 
another political party from me, it worked. And the services were still 
provided. That was, in effect, almost a 15 percent across-the-board 
cut.
  And so what we are proposing today, I believe, is very reasonable and 
responsible and in the interest of the taxpayers of the United States.
  At this time I am happy to yield to the minority leader of the House 
of Representatives, a person who is so widely respected, the 
Congressman from Ohio, John Boehner.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The distinguished minority leader is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate my colleague for yielding and I appreciate 
the work he is doing bringing this amendment to the floor.
  I came to Washington 17 years ago because I thought government was 
too big, I thought it spent too much and didn't think that it was being 
held accountable. And the reason I am here this afternoon on this bill 
is because this amendment offered by Mr. Wilson and Mr. Campbell will 
reduce the overall spending level in this bill to the President's 
request.
  The President submitted a budget back in January that said we can 
balance the budget over the next 5 years without raising taxes. But to 
do that, it's dependent upon us holding the line on spending. Even at 
the President's level, there is an increase over last year, and I 
believe that bringing the level of spending down in this bill to what 
the President requested puts this bill in a position to actually move 
through the process and become law.
  If you looked over the course of this year, our friends on the other 
side of the aisle have a budget that will balance over the next 5 
years, but with the largest tax increase in American history. If we 
want to review the bidding on spending here in Washington this year, 
you go back to February with a CR that was some $6 billion over the 
President's request. And then we can look at the supplemental spending 
bill for Iraq and Katrina and other things that was $17 billion over 
the President's request. And now if we look at the appropriations 
process that we're in the midst of, we have an additional $20 billion 
over and above where the President is.
  At the end of the day, the American people want to keep more of the 
money that they earn and want to send less of that money here to 
Washington. And I think to the extent we can hold the line on spending, 
we're protecting the taxpayers, protecting their wallets.
  I think this is a modest amendment that reduces the spending in this 
bill by some $1.13 billion, it's the right

[[Page 16516]]

move, and our colleagues ought to support the amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
my good friend and colleague from New York, a member of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Israel.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my distinguished chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have listened 
very carefully to my friends from the other side suggest that this bill 
is just too expensive, that it needs to be cut. Well, let me tell you 
what's far more expensive.
  Thirty years ago, President Carter told the American people that we 
were going to declare the moral equivalent of war on foreign oil. And 
the only thing we've managed to do in the 30 years since then is double 
our imports of oil from the Middle East and cut investments in 
renewable research and development by about 80 percent. So we tried it 
your way. We cut those investments 80 percent in the past 30 years. And 
what's the result? We've doubled our imports of foreign oil from the 
Persian Gulf.
  You want to know why this is so expensive a problem? It is a military 
vulnerability. Two years ago, the Department of Defense spent $10.6 
billion on basic energy costs because of this dependence on foreign 
oil. $10.6 billion paid for by the taxpayer. Of that, the Air Force 
spent half, $4.7 billion, on one thing: buying fuel, which is also paid 
for by the American taxpayer.
  Now, I believe, as many of my friends do, in robust military budgets. 
I am a very strong supporter of our military and I believe we need to 
spend what it takes to defend freedom, and my friends would agree. The 
problem is this: Because of the fact that we tried it their way and our 
dependence on foreign oil has actually increased, we're in a position 
right now where we are borrowing money from China to fund our military 
budgets to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to fuel our military to 
protect us from China and the Persian Gulf. A $550 billion military 
budget and we have to borrow the money from our adversaries. And, guess 
what, our taxpayers have to pay the interest on the money that we're 
borrowing from our adversaries to fuel our military to protect us from 
our adversaries. It makes no sense whatsoever. We've tried it their 
way, Mr. Chairman, and it hasn't worked.
  I don't believe any one of my colleagues would suggest that we should 
cut the Department of Defense budget. We all believe in national 
security, and I'm with my colleagues on that.

                              {time}  1600

  But as a matter of national security, we should not cut this budget 
either, because this budget is a national security budget, because it 
is not acceptable that a Stryker combat vehicle that is ferrying our 
troops into some very dangerous environments gets between 5 and 10 
miles to the gallon, sounds like a 1957 Buick and is a loud, moving 
target. It is not acceptable that our C-17s burn 3,000 gallons of fuel 
an hour and that we have to rely on our adversaries to fuel those 
systems.
  I would appeal to my colleagues on the other side that just as they 
are strong supporters of the Department of Defense and would never 
think to suggest just a 1 or 2 percent reduction in military budgets, 
the same should hold true on this.
  I would add one other thing, if I may, Mr. Chairman. One of the 
things that worries all of us, and worries our military planners, is 
not just the threats that we see in Iran, and we passed a resolution 
earlier today that I supported that would take a hard line on Iran and 
its development, attempted development on nuclear weapons, not just 
those things, but loose nukes. But the fact that there is a tremendous 
quantity of nuclear materials proliferating around the world that we 
have to find, identify and secure, because we don't want a rogue nation 
packing those loose nukes into a suitcase and bringing them across our 
borders.
  Well, this bill contains funding for the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative, whose mission is to locate, secure and remove and 
facilitate disposal of high-risk vulnerable nuclear material and 
equipment locations. It does increase the President's funding level. I 
think the American people would want us to find the money to secure 
those loose nukes. Now, maybe that means there is a little less money 
to go to Halliburton and no-bid contracts.
  My final point is this: the other side continues to say that this is 
a tax increase. It is not a tax increase. It will not be a tax 
increase. The other side is not accurately explaining this to the 
American people, is the most diplomatic way I can put it.
  I will say this, it does require different priorities. The other side 
has no problem allowing big corporations to register themselves in 
offshore P.O. boxes so that they can avoid paying their fair share of 
taxes. The other side has no problem funding and bull-dozing money to 
Halliburton in no-bid contracts. The other side had no problem 
shoveling tax cuts to the richest oil company executives on Earth.
  If the money was there for that, the money is there for this bill. 
Maybe we need to take the money from those priorities and put them into 
this priority.
  For America's energy security, for a strong future, and to get our 
troops out of those Stryker combat vehicles that are loud gas guzzlers 
and put them on something safer. This bill makes those investments. 
Those investments are, ultimately, in our national security.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to 
reduce the size of this bill, the cost of this bill.
  I have got to tell you I grew up in the late 1970s. I remember pretty 
distinctly the policies of Jimmy Carter. I remember the high 
unemployment rates. I remember the high inflation rates.
  I recall getting my driver's license and getting that 1970 station 
wagon to drive and waiting in a line for gas two blocks long; and when 
you got there, there was one pump yet working and the others had the 11 
by 8 piece of paper that said ``out of gas'' on it. I think those are 
the policies which some of my friends on the left are advocating today. 
I just have to openly wonder how well Honda Civics would work in the 
sand in Iraq if we can't use military vehicles because of their gas 
mileage.
  But let's get back to the real issue of what we're talking about here 
today, and that's ways of controlling spending. Yes, it is showing a 
difference between the majority party and the minority party in the 
sense of spending.
  We are here fighting to reduce the size of their bill. We would like 
to bring it to last year's level where it was only a 1.6 percent 
increase, and they were yakking about how we needed to spend more, and 
when they got in control, they were able to do that.
  They have a bill here before us today that increases the spending way 
above the President's request. This amendment just simply brings it 
down, $1.13 billion to the President's request. So either way we can 
fight to reduce the size of their bills, and last week's bill. Again, 
they were both double-digit increases.
  I think this type of debate is healthy. It also does show, as one of 
the previous speakers mentioned, that there are policy differences. 
There are priority differences between the two parties, and we are 
showing how we are the party of fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, indeed, as I am here, 
proposing a cut of around 3.7 percent, this is across the board. 
Actually, it's an affirmation of the significance of the projects that 
are in the bill.
  I am not saying they should be terminated. I am saying that they 
should be stalled. I am certainly not indicating they should be 
interrupted or destroyed. My being here is to propose that there be a 
reduction in spending, except that it's really a reduction to the 
President's recommendation, which is an increase in spending of $175 
million.
  But it is a savings to the taxpayers of $1.13 billion. That's, 
indeed, a key reason that I ran for Congress was to, indeed, protect 
the taxpayers, look out

[[Page 16517]]

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

                              {time}  1615

  I would grant that the Advanced Simulation and Computational 
Initiative has taken hold and has produced results and has been a 
valuable investment.
  To now, after more than a decade of investment that has not come to 
total fruition, to make a hard turn in the road and start spending new 
money on new construction without a strategy would be a mistake. And 
this subcommittee has made a determination not to waste the American 
taxpayers' dollars on that project.
  We have asked, and it began 2 years ago under the leadership of then-
Chairman Hobson, that we have an arsenal of 10,000 nuclear warheads, we 
have a Cold War complex. We need to rationalize and, in effect, 
downsize that to meet the new threats to make sure that we are nimble, 
that we are safe, and that we save the taxpayers as much money as 
possible.
  The administration has come back in and said, well, let us build a 
new nuclear weapon by 2012. And you know what? We're going to take care 
of the

[[Page 16518]]

rationalization of the complex, and we're going to downsize and we're 
going to do that in 2030.
  My point is, I wish the administration and, in this case 
particularly, the Department of Energy, had as much aggression and 
commitment to downsizing the complex as they do on developing a weapon.
  And what they also would suggest that we do, before we downsize is, 
well, let's begin construction of this new nuclear weapon in the 
existing complex. So now we will have the old and we will have the new. 
And I think everyone, Mr. Chairman, knows the end of that story. 
Nothing will ever change.
  It's hard to attach an exact dollar and figure on that critical issue 
of our national security. But many of the dollars we have saved and not 
spent, and we have cut in this bill, is to make sure that we take the 
right approach as far as our nuclear strategy and our nuclear safety, 
and I am very proud of that.
  I see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) on his feet. And if he 
would want time, I would be happy to yield to him.
  Mr. HOBSON. I just wanted to take a moment to comment that I really 
appreciate the Chairman's very thoughtful comments, especially on all 
the issues that he talked about, but certainly, when it comes to NNSA 
and the lack of management of the weapons systems.
  The gentleman remarked to me over here, do we have 9,000 weapons, or 
10,000 weapons? Well, the number we've been trying to get out for a 
long time, cause it's a good news story. But we can't tell you here how 
good news the story is, because it's still secure. And we've tried for 
a number of years to get out this issue of how many weapons we have and 
to get this complex sized appropriately.
  But we're very disturbed, in a bipartisan way, about the management 
of the entire Department of Energy. And I want to associate myself with 
the gentleman's comments and his opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. And Mr. Chairman, I want people to truly appreciate 
Mr. Hobson's dedication as a member of not only this subcommittee, and 
as chairman for 4 years, but as a member of the Defense Subcommittee 
when there was a similar proposal several years ago and he thought it 
was the incorrect proposal. He stopped what I think was incorrect 
public policy from taking place. He saved the taxpayers of this country 
money.
  And the only reason today I believe we have even a 20-30 proposition 
from the administration as far as downsizing the complex, that I find 
totally unsatisfactory but at least it is a proposal, is because of the 
work that Mr. Hobson did. And I thank him for that very much, and do 
ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 19, 2007, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to extend my appreciation and 
gratitude to Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson for putting 
together a very fine bill.
  However, what we want to do is oppose a certain part of this, denying 
funding for monopolistic corporations to impede upon States rights and 
people's private personal proper rights. It's an important amendment 
and I ask everyone to consider it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, this is going to be the only vote that you're 
going to have on this issue. When the power lines are coming through 
your district, and this is coming through your district, how will you 
explain to your constituents, to your neighbors, your friends, your 
local elected officials, your farmers, that you had a chance to slow 
this down and you didn't do it?
  How are you going to tell them that you sided with the power 
companies and not with the citizens?
  This is a time out. It will give us a chance to reexamine the 
process.
  These corridors divide communities, neighborhoods. They destroy 
landscapes. In fact, the current corridor in the Mid-Atlantic includes 
Antietam, where 20,000 people died in 1 day. We need to make sure that 
we take time to do it right, and don't bow to the scare tactics and the 
false Dear Colleague letters.
  This is your first and likely your only vote on this issue. Don't let 
this vote come back to haunt you. Voting against the Hinchey amendment 
means you don't want to make sure these corridors are sited properly.
  I strongly urge the Members to vote aye for the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Hinchey-
Wolf amendment to force the DOE to take a time-out from its rush to 
subject giant stretches of this country to eminent domain for energy 
interests.
  In my State, in my district, the New York Regional Interconnect, for 
instance, NIRE, is an internationally financed private entity which 
will receive eminent domain rights to seize private land for private 
profit. It would remove the State environmental review process and all 
property rights and States rights from the equation and give that all 
to FERC. I think this is something that needs much closer examination.
  New York City, I would reassure my colleagues from downstate, does 
not need NIRE to have power, especially not this route. In fact, there 
are alternate routes that the State could and would look at if it had 
the time that it would normally have under CCRA.
  I urge support for the Hinchey-Wolf amendment in the interest of 
property rights and States rights.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts rise as 
the designee of the gentleman from Indiana?
  Mr. OLVER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Member from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Hinchey-Wolf amendment.
  Today, more than ever, America needs a transmission grid that will 
deliver reliable and affordable electricity to consumers across the 
Nation. The Energy Information Agency projects that electricity 
consumption will increase 43 percent by 2030. Other studies project 
growth and demand to grow by 19 percent over the next 10 years, while 
power capacity will grow by only 6 percent over that same time. It 
stands to reason we're going to have to move power where we have excess 
to where we need it.
  Recognizing the fact the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPACT, allowed 
for the

[[Page 16519]]

designation of national interest corridors where congestion in the 
electricity grid is jeopardizing reliable service and raising the cost 
to electricity consumers, this designation is not a mandate that a 
transmission line be built but, instead, an incentive for stakeholders 
to address the grid capacity issues. FERC is authorized to get involved 
only if the State is unwilling to or cannot act, then only after 
exhaustive Federal considerations.
  The Hinchey-Wolf amendment, unfortunately, seeks to block funding for 
the National Electricity Transmission Corridors as contained in the 
authorizing legislation. Failing to address congestion and transmission 
infrastructure will do absolutely nothing for electricity consumers who 
will see their energy bills continue to climb in the future. And more 
blackouts.
  Our constituents deserve a robust energy transmission infrastructure, 
and EPACT encourages congested States to resolve the problems in a 
timely manner. And we know the issue of blackouts, particularly in mid-
America to the Northeast.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hinchey-Wolf amendment because all 
it will do is raise electric prices because we can't move power where 
we really need it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Arcuri).
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this 
amendment. And I'd like to start off by saying to my colleague that I 
respect a great deal from Texas, this amendment is not about sharing 
power. It's not about giving power from one part of the country to 
another. It's about how do we do it. Do we do it in a thoughtful way? 
Do we do it in a reasonable way? Or do we do it in a way by using 
eminent domain, by running high power lines over people's land, by 
taking people's land? Is that the American way? Is that the way we want 
to have our energy policy dictated to the States and the localities? I 
think not.
  I think there is a better way to do it. There is a more thoughtful 
way to do it. We are facing such a plan in New York, and it's ill-
conceived and poorly thought out. And that's not the way we should be 
running our energy policy in this country. It should be in a more 
thoughtful way.
  I strongly support this amendment because we need to stand up to the 
power companies and not let them take our land and not let them run 
power lines over people's property.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to a 
member of the committee, Mr. Peterson.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of 
the more important amendments we're going to deal with today.
  America needs available power, and especially electric power. We have 
a system that has not worked. The legislation doesn't give the Federal 
Government the right to usurp States rights. It only gets involved when 
multiple States can't get their job done. I was in State government for 
19 years, and I wouldn't bet the farm on four PUCs adequately 
performing on a time basis so we could connect our grid.
  Here's what Bill Richardson said in 2001. ``The United States has a 
first-rate economy. We're the Superpower of the world, the best 
military, a booming technological economy, but we've got a grid that is 
antiquated, that is Third World, that needs beefing up. We've got very 
weak power transmission lines to connect our generation capacity.''
  And here's what Sam Bodman said in 2006, a year ago. ``The Nation is 
currently facing serious near problems in adequately delivering 
electricity to its customers.''
  It means we have to fix the grid. And we've been unable to get States 
to work together collectively. This is a process that only kicks in 
when the States can't get their job done.
  Connecting this country is a national issue. I don't want my State in 
charge of the national grid. I had a Governor's person come into my 
office protesting a power line that was proposed. It had been off of 
the table by the PGM for a year and a half and they didn't even know 
it. It wasn't even up for consideration. And the three States that were 
involved in the little piece that was left was not that State.
  Folks, there's a lot of disinformation out here. The connectivity of 
our electric system is vital to our economic future and we need a 
process. This was put in the energy bill because it wasn't working, 
because we couldn't upgrade our grid.
  And two Secretaries of Energy and leaders across this country, the 
Edison Institute, all say, don't pass this amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, it is pretty clear from the record of 
their activities that the Department of Energy has been in cahoots with 
the electric utilities and they are running roughshod over Americans 
everywhere.
  My subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, held a hearing 
on this exact matter, and we heard about concerns about the law and 
about the Department of Energy's implementation.
  These concerns include whether the Department of Energy would take 
into account the protection of national parks, State parks, 
conservation easements, and historical sites like battlefields when 
determining where an electric transmission corridor should be 
designated. The answer is they don't.
  Whether the Department of Energy is considering the effects of a 
corridor designation on the private property rights of landowners. They 
did not.
  Whether the Department is considering the environmental impact of 
corridor designations. The answer is they did not.
  Whether the Department of Energy is considering alternatives to 
constructing new electric transmission lines, like demand-side 
management, distributed generation, and energy efficiency. They did 
not.
  Whether the Department has adequately considered the actual benefit 
utility consumers would receive. They did not.
  Support the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
  The 2005 energy law required the Department of Energy to identify 
geographical areas throughout the country where congestion in the 
electric grid is raising prices and creating reliability concerns.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I don't think I have to tell anybody here on 
the floor that we have an energy crisis in this country, and there are 
a host of reasons why we have an energy crisis in this country. And I 
think most of us understand that, frankly, there is not one silver 
bullet that is going to resolve these issues.
  The designation of this 2005 energy law creates interest of 
corridors, clearly vests States with the primary responsibility for 
siting transmission lines and considering what local or regional 
benefits and consequences exist.
  I think it is clear that in the 2005 law that we are seeking to amend 
here that the national designation does not, does not, usurp State 
authority for siting transmission lines. Yet we have a lot of 
challenges on a regional basis.
  In California we are attempting to try to work with Arizona to the 
mutual benefit of citizens living in both States to try to allow for 
the conductivity of that energy back and forth as well as to try to 
maintain the stability of much-needed electricity for our constituents 
in the Southwest.
  This amendment, I think, would do great harm to that. And that is 
precisely why I think the 2005 law was designed to address short-
sighted and narrow interests blocking the public good.
  I ask that you reject this amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

[[Page 16520]]


  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of this amendment.
  As a member of the Energy Committee, I want to debunk a couple of 
myths that have been perpetrated today in the debate. First of all, 
that this was done hastily and thoughtlessly. The fact of the matter is 
the issue of the transmission of electricity has been an issue for many 
years. Many hearings have been held, much debate. It was part of the 
Energy Act. What we have to do is resolve the issue how we get energy 
from generator A to consumer B. In between we have to figure out how to 
do that.
  Myth number two is that this runs roughshod over States' and 
communities' rights. The reality is that they are involved in the 
process. They are involved in working with FERC, and FERC has to work 
with them on the siting issues. And only when there is a conflict do 
they get to break that conflict by rising above it.
  We in this Nation have to figure out how we get electricity from 
point A to consumer B. Think of this corridor as a transportation 
highway. And when we think of it as a highway, we understand why we 
have to do it this way.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment.
  In Arizona, which is one of the fastest-growing States, we, as a 
growing State, have enough energy and power to meet the power needs of 
our State. But what has happened is that since California has a 
moratorium on building generating plants, the tendency is to have power 
plants be built in Arizona to generate power and then power lines to be 
taken into California.
  Very recently, about 1\1/2\ months ago, the Arizona State Corporation 
Commission, which has the responsibility for siting the power lines, 
rejected, and it was an issue of local control in that the power lines 
that were being proposed would have endangered the wildlife. There were 
problems with the enhancement features of our land.
  The issue for me is local control; so that is why I support the 
Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Arcuri).
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in very strong opposition to 
this bill.
  This bill does so few things in terms of getting power to where it 
needs to be. They talk about the fact that the original 1221 was 
intended to help get power to places that need it to help alleviate 
congestion. But, in fact, the NYRI proposal in New York State does 
nothing whatsoever to prevent congestion. Rather, it does more to 
create congestion than to alleviate it.
  I strongly support the Hinchey-Wolf amendment because I believe that 
using eminent domain to take people's property in order to run power 
lines over it is the wrong thing. It is not the American way. It is not 
what we came to Congress for. And I strongly oppose that.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I just want to point out, in response to a couple of remarks that 
were made, this project that Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Hinchey, and I are 
concerned with, which could happen anywhere in the country to any of 
you, is not an interstate project. It occurs entirely within New York 
State, mysteriously starting in Utica and mysteriously ending in the 
little town of Campbell Hall. The other shoes have not dropped yet. But 
in New York State's Environmental Quality Review Act, nothing gets 
approved in under a year.
  The proposal in section 1221 that after a year it kicks up authority 
to FERC is patently meant to usurp State authority. You can't get a 
subdivision, a power plant, a landfill, hardly any public project 
approved that fast. It usually takes a draft environmental impact 
statement; public comment; a final environmental impact statement; and 
at long last, approval. But two years is the shortest that I have ever 
seen. So to have this be one year means to me that the law was written 
to usurp State authority.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
this amendment barring funding in this bill to be used to designate any 
area as a ``national interest electric transmission corridor,'' or a 
NIET. NIET designation and the corresponding authority that has been 
given to FERC blatantly usurps States rights to designate and site 
transmission lines in accordance with what is best for its citizenry. 
There is a well-established successful history of States executing this 
authority, and there is no real reason to take it away.
  I understand there needs to be a holistic approach to our energy 
policy, but absent clear and definitive reasons to grant this authority 
to FERC, why are we allowing this Federal entity to circumvent State 
siting decisions, State comprehensive energy plans, and State efforts 
to promote energy efficiency and independence? It is clear more 
analysis and consideration is needed.
  This amendment would not strike this provision forever. Rather, it 
would allow us more time to have debate, oversight, and public comment 
on the issue. When this provision was passed in the last Congress by 
the Senate and signed into law, it was a small piece of a broad energy 
overhaul. It received no debate on this floor and no vote in this body. 
Now, with the prospect of towering transmission lines running through 
214 counties in 11 States across our Nation, and that is just the first 
chapter, we must take a time out to reexamine this provision.
  What will you tell your constituents when these towering lines are 
denied by your State regulators, but mandated by FERC? You had your 
vote today and you need to vote for this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Vote ``yes'' to allow 
us to give needed consideration to the broad ramifications of proposed 
NIET corridors and ensure that the rights of States are not unduly 
trampled.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment.
  Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is an abridgement of 
the rights of State and local governments to influence Federal policy 
as it pertains to their communities. In fact, section 1221, regarding 
the siting of overhead electricity transmission lines, permits the FERC 
to outright ignore State decisions and local considerations.
  We are elected to represent a select constituency and our States, to 
advocate for their needs, and to advance our national interest. In this 
instance those responsibilities collide.
  I recognize that the Federal Government can and should do more to 
modernize our Nation's aging and congested electric power 
infrastructure. But the Northeast corridor proposal negatively impacts 
the environment, decreases property values, poses health risks, and 
hurts local property tax revenue. What is worse is that it provides 
State and local regulatory agencies no ability to involve themselves.
  By failing to support this amendment, Members of Congress will, in 
essence, allow unknown bureaucrats in Washington, huddled around a 
faceless map, to make critical decisions that affect the lives and 
financial well-being of thousands of American families. Surely that 
wasn't our Founding Fathers' intent. There has to be a better way than 
to circumvent a State's decisions and disregard property owners' 
rights. By supporting this amendment, we create time to find that 
better way.
  Mr. HOBSON. Might I inquire how much time I have left.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page 16521]]


  Mr. HOBSON. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. Chairman, I might say I am doing this out of courtesy to these 
gentlemen. I happen to oppose the amendment, but I think they have a 
right to be heard.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
  We are not asking for a repeal. We are asking for time.
  Again, this section, and it is amazing, was never voted on in the 
House. The power industry lobbyists have been roaming this Hill. Your 
constituents are back in their districts expecting you to represent 
them.

                              {time}  1645

  The corridor goes over and includes Gettysburg, where Lincoln gave 
the Gettysburg Address. Antietam, 20,000 people died. No environmental 
impact statement. No consideration of energy efficiency technology. No 
consideration for historic lands. It is an assault on property rights.
  In the last Congress, we all got worked up on the Kelo decision. This 
is, in essence, whereby they can do this. And someone said, well, you 
go through the State. The power companies won't really try to go 
through the States. They will pro forma it, knowing that they can go to 
FERC and FERC will do it.
  Here's what the FERC administrator said: ``The authority to lawfully 
deny a permit is critically important to the States for ensuring that 
the interests of the local communities and the citizens are 
protected.''
  What the Commission does today, it's a significant inroad in 
traditional State transmission citing authority. It gives States two 
options: Either issue a permit, or we will do it for them. Obviously, 
there is no choice.
  I strongly urge, in the interest of all these things we're talking 
about, a vote for the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have 3\1/2\ minutes left and 
understand I have the right to close. What I would like to do is to 
yield that 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York before he 
seeks recognition, and would simply emphasize to the membership that I 
am doing this as a courtesy. I am in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. But I would yield my remaining time to the gentleman from 
New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I want to express my deep appreciation to Chairman 
Visclosky, not just for his excellent work in putting this 
appropriations bill together, but also for yielding me this time.
  It's important for every Member of this House to focus their 
attention on what is happening here and what we are trying to do.
  What we are dealing with here in the context of this appropriations 
bill, which, if this amendment is successful, will function out there 
for only 1 year, what we are attempting to deal with is an obscure 
provision in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which hardly any Member of 
this House, I bet, understood when that bill was passed because of the 
obscurity of this provision.
  What does this provision do? This provision tramples on States 
rights. It says if any State, any State in the Nation is unable to 
agree to a location for a high-tension transmission line, or if they 
stipulate that certain corrections have to be made, if that takes more 
than 1 year, which it would in almost every case, then the Federal 
Energy Agency steps in and they designate where the corridor will go, 
overriding States rights. I believe that this provision is contrary to 
a very significant provision in the United States Constitution, and 
this provision overrides States rights. That alone is good reason to 
vote for this amendment.
  But beyond that, that provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 
which this amendment would stop in its tracks for just 1 year so that 
we could give it further consideration, that provision stipulates that 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can exercise eminent domain on 
people's private personal property. That means that FERC can condemn 
anyone's private personal property in order to establish one of these 
high-tension transmission corridors. That in itself is bad enough.
  But that provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 goes even 
further. It says that FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
can grant that power of condemnation of individual citizens' private 
personal property rights to a private corporation so that the private 
corporation can now go in and declare eminent domain and condemn 
people's private personal property.
  This provision in this Energy Policy Act overrides States rights and 
the individual rights of private American citizens. It was put in there 
inappropriately. Hardly anybody was aware of it when that bill passed. 
Many of us voted against it nevertheless. Still, it is part of the law.
  What we are saying here in this amendment to this appropriations bill 
is give us another year to look at this issue. Let this issue be 
considered more carefully. We should not have this kind of impediment 
against States rights and people's private personal property rights.
  I ask you, on behalf of all of your constituents, please join us in 
support of this amendment.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, those of us who lived through the brown-
outs and rolling black-outs during the California energy crisis 
remember well how difficult the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
was to deal with, and it pains me to vote for a national policy that I 
hope will not need to be used.
  However, after carefully reviewing the issue, I do not see a better 
alternative. My vote is a vote to keep the lights on in Southern 
California.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-
Wolf amendment and thank the authors for highlighting Section 1221 of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which could allow DOE to designate large 
transmission corridors across the country and override States' 
decisions about transmission line placement.
  Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that the energy requirements of our 
growing economy will place increasing demands on existing transmission 
facilities. In this regard, modernization is an important goal.
  But we want to make certain that our State, county and local 
communities are fully engaged in the process to determine where 
transmission lines are located. Local leaders and property-owners have 
the clearest view of how these lines will affect their communities.
  The goal of this amendment is to allow additional time for 
consideration of DOE and FERC's implementation process, so that there 
will be more complete deliberation and consideration of this potential 
regulation.
  Municipal, county, and State officials want and need to be full 
partners in the process that leads to the siting of new transmission 
lines.
  I urge support of the Hinchey-Wolf amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hinchey-Wolf 
amendment. My constituents need electricity in their homes, their 
businesses and their communities. This amendment will deprive my 
constituents and the people of Pennsylvania of low-cost energy.
  In 2005, the Republican-led Congress passed the bipartisan Energy 
Policy Act, 275-156. In section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act, the 
Department of Energy was required to identify and report a National 
Transmission Congestion and Constraint Study.
  The study identified two areas as inadequate: the Mid-Atlantic 
region, which encompasses my district, and the southwest-southern 
California region. With no coincidence, in 2002 these same areas were 
identified as problem areas. They were identified in two separate 
studies, 5 years apart, because there is an overwhelming need to build 
the infrastructure to supply the increasing demand for energy. The lack 
of necessary infrastructure in these areas imposes billions of dollars 
on consumers annually and leaves the citizens of the country vulnerable 
to rolling blackouts.
  On April 26, 2007, the Department of Energy issued two draft versions 
for transmission corridors, one traversing my home State and its 
neighboring regions and the other in southern California. The public 
comment period remains open for written submissions until July 6. In 
addition, the Energy Policy Act requires studies every 3 years.
  This amendment would require a needless, burdensome study, which in 
effect, would study two previous and congruent studies. At best, with 
this amendment, we are questioning whether or not to repeal sections of 
a successful, bipartisan bill, extensively debated and enacted less 
than 2 years ago, when the process so clearly works, the need is 
clearly

[[Page 16522]]

there and the effects of inaction are so clearly dire. Let's allow the 
process to work. Let us have faith in our positive work in the Energy 
Policy Act.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Hinchey-Wolf amendment, which would prohibit funds in this bill from 
being used to designate any area as a National Interest Electric 
Transmission Corridor (NIETC).
  By providing a 1-year time out in the designation of NIETCs, the 
amendment will force the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Congress, States and the public to reexamine the 
process for designating these areas to ensure that States' rights are 
upheld and people's personal property rights are protected.
  Specifically, this amendment will postpone a flawed plan by the 
Department of Energy to designate two vast swaths of the country as 
NIETCs. Far from narrow ``corridors,'' these massive areas encompass 
214 counties and 9 cities in 11 states, including large areas in my 
home State of New York.
  The way these areas have been designated has come under intense 
scrutiny, and for good reason. In a hearing in the Oversight and 
Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy earlier this year, it 
was made clear that the DOE did not adequately consult with the States 
on this issue and that the designations would actually hinder the 
States' efforts to address climate change. In addition, the congestion 
study which the proposed corridor designations are based on was 
fundamentally flawed. Last, the DOE simply failed to consider the 
appropriate alternatives to corridor designation.
  At that hearing Paul D. Tonko, Chairman, Committee on Energy, New 
York State Assembly said, ``There is little confidence, at this moment, 
that federal government officials--who are far removed from the 
physical and socio-economic location of local proposals--will be able 
to fully appreciate the environmental, economic and social impacts of 
long-range, high-voltage transmission lines in local communities.''
  I also want to note that Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York strongly 
supports the Hinchey amendment. He has made clear that the NIETC 
designation in New York is not only unnecessary, it would actually be 
counter-productive because if it is finalized, the FERC would be able 
to preempt parts of New York's long-established and efficient process 
for siting transmission lines.
  Most appallingly, if we do not pass the Hinchey amendment, the FERC 
could eventually have the ability to give energy companies the power of 
Federal eminent domain to force private landowners to sell parts of 
their property. We just cannot allow States' rights to be trampled and 
private property rights to be taken away.
  Yes, we absolutely need to make sure that there is an efficient 
process in place to meet the critical energy needs of my constituents 
in New York City and in other large urban areas. However, that process 
must also be fair. It must protect the rights of private property 
owners, take into account environmental and historic preservation 
concerns, and not unnecessarily usurp States' rights. That's why I will 
cast my vote in favor of the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I supported the Hinchey-Wolf amendment 
to the FY 2008 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. This 
amendment would have established a one-year spending limitation with 
regard to the designation of National Interest Electric Transmission 
Corridors under section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I 
supported this limitation amendment because section 1221 is a flawed 
provision of federal law, and the Department of Energy's implementation 
of the provision has enhanced concerns about the law rather than 
addressed them.
  Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act grants the Department of Energy 
unprecedented siting and construction authority for transmission lines. 
While I strongly support the upgrade of our nation's transmission 
infrastructure and believe that states and the federal government need 
tools to make this happen, section 1221 goes too far. The provision 
invites only illusory participation from the states--one year is much 
too short a timeframe for states to make any decision about 
transmission siting, much less the right one.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to provide a realistic 
backstop for the federal government that gives the states time and 
flexibility to suggest alternatives. I hope that this Congress can 
advance a more balanced approach.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to comment on the last speaker from New York 
about States rights and private property rights.
  The taking of land is dear to me. And this Congress took 147 million 
acres of land in 1980 and made it into wilderness, parks and refuges. I 
bring that up because, of that 147, 27 of them were picked by the 
State. But we did it. That was private property.
  But I am, Mr. Chairman, dismayed by this Congress, including Members 
of my own party, who voted today to eliminate funding for the Denali 
Commission and cripple the economic life to hundreds of small and 
impoverished communities throughout rural Alaska.
  I am standing here today in the well defending the funding for the 
Denali Commission because the Federal Government has, time and time 
again, as I mentioned, limited the ability of Alaskans to provide for 
themselves. We have trillions of dollars' worth of resources in our 
State; we haven't been able to produce them. This Congress has said no 
to ANWR. Many of the speakers who just spoke voted no on ANWR, no to 
any new mining, no to more Alaskan oil and natural gas. Not letting 
Alaskans provide for themselves is economic terrorism by this body.
  We sent over 15.5 billion barrels of oil through the pipeline. At 
today's prices, that's equivalent to $1.1 trillion. We have trillions 
of dollars' worth more of energy. If the State were allowed to manage 
its own resources, we wouldn't need the commission. And we wouldn't be 
sending trillions of American dollars overseas, to countries that hate 
us, for the energy Americans could be producing at home.
  Unfortunately, energy ignorance in this body is increasing almost as 
fast as our dependence on foreign oil. Until Alaska is permitted to 
produce its own resources for themselves and for America, Alaskans will 
need the Denali Commission.
  In 1998, Congress passed the Denali Commission Act. It provides job 
training and other economic development services for rural communities, 
chiefly in troubled communities, where unemployment exceeds 50 percent. 
It promotes rural development by providing power generation and 
transmission facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer 
systems, and other infrastructure needs.
  To give you an idea, my State of Alaska is 656,425 square miles, more 
than twice the size of Texas. Individual Alaskans own less than 1 
percent of their land. The Federal Government owns over 60 percent. 
Flush toilets are just a luxury, and the Denali Commission tries to 
provide good sanitation to all Alaskans that do not have the ability to 
have potable water or remove the sewage they create. The fact is, I 
doubt if any of you have ever heard of a honey bucket.
  How many of my colleagues have communities in their districts with no 
water and sewer? Well, Mr. Chairman, I have several. The Denali 
Commission has brought these systems to many of my rural communities, 
but there are still over 150 areas that suffer from poor sanitation and 
a lack of safe drinking water.
  There are rural communities that are completely isolated, and my 
Alaskans can only get to and from their homes by boat or by small 
plane. There are no roads connecting these communities outside of 
Anchorage and Fairbanks.
  The Commission also works carefully to ensure these communities have 
telephones, a reliable supply of electricity, and in some cases, 
Internet access.
  Mr. Chairman, these are all things we in the Lower 48 take for 
granted, but

[[Page 16523]]

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


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman.

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Porter

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

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 516]

                                AYES--80

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

                               NOES--351

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

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

                              {time}  1724

  Ms. ROYBALL-ALLARD, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ and Mrs. CAPITO and Messrs. 
LARSON of Connecticut, REYNOLDS, BROWN of South Carolina, KILDEE, 
RUPPERSBERGER, SHULER, WALDEN of Oregon, TOWNS, TOM DAVIS

[[Page 16524]]

of Virginia and ELLISON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Ms. 
ESHOO, Ms. LEE, Mrs. JONES of Ohio and Mrs. CHRISTENSEN and Messrs. 
THOMPSON of California, PALLONE, ALEXANDER, BERMAN, RODRIGUEZ, 
GRIJALVA, ENGEL, SIRES, McDERMOTT, JACKSON of Illinois, WEINER, MEEHAN, 
CONYERS, COHEN, LANTOS and CAMPBELL of California changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Foxx

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 517]

                               AYES--134

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

                               NOES--293

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

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


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1727

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


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 121, 
noes 312, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 518]

                               AYES--121

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

[[Page 16525]]


     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Thompson (CA)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)

                               NOES--312

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Becerra
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ortiz
     Sullivan


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1734

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


               Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 133, 
noes 298, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 519]

                               AYES--133

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

                               NOES--298

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick

[[Page 16526]]


     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--6

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


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1738

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


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 267, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 520]

                               AYES--166

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

                               NOES--267

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Becerra
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ortiz
     Sullivan


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1743

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


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

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146, 
noes 285, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 521]

                               AYES--146

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell

[[Page 16527]]


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

                               NOES--285

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

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     McCarthy (NY)
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Becerra
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Sullivan


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1749

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


             Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 522]

                               AYES--129

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

                               NOES--301

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley

[[Page 16528]]


     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Becerra
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Flake
     McCrery
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Sullivan


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1752

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, 
noes 274, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 523]

                               AYES--157

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

                               NOES--274

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Becerra
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Feeney
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Sullivan


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1757

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


            Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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

[[Page 16529]]

  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 275, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 524]

                               AYES--158

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

                               NOES--275

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Becerra
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ortiz
     Sullivan


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1801

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


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

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 138, 
noes 295, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 525]

                               AYES--138

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

                               NOES--295

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt

[[Page 16530]]


     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Becerra
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ortiz
     Sullivan


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1806

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 257, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 526]

                               AYES--174

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

                               NOES--257

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

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


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

[[Page 16531]]



                              {time}  1810

  Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong 
support of H.R. 2641, the ``Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 
2007.'' I also rise to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. 
Visclosky, the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee and his 
Ranking Member, Mr. Hobson of Ohio, for working together in a 
constructive effort to renew America's dependence on foreign oil and 
cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
  Moreover, this bill merits our support because it increases the 
Nation's commitment to long-term basic research by increasing the 
Federal investment that is so critical to developing the next 
generation of scientific breakthroughs. Federal funding for research 
and development has declined steadily over the last decade, and sound 
science has been compromised by political interference. This 
legislation takes a giant step toward reversing this disturbing trend.
  Mr. Chairman, in the 1970s, our Nation faced an energy crisis unlike 
any we had ever experienced before. The OPEC oil embargo of 1973 led to 
skyrocketing prices, long gas lines, gas sales only every other day, 
and shortages where gas was simply unavailable. We experienced another 
oil shock in the late 1970s and under the leadership of President Jimmy 
Carter, America responded with unprecedented initiatives for energy 
research. But over the years, gas prices came down, incentive was lost, 
and these efforts fell by the wayside.
  Today, we again face an energy crisis, only this time it is coupled 
with the enormous challenge of addressing the reality of global climate 
change. H.R. 2641 attempts to face these twin crises with over three 
billion dollars to address global climate change--researching its 
effects and working on technologies to slow it down--and investment in 
renewable energy programs that both reduce greenhouse gases and help 
our Nation meet its energy needs.
  The bill cuts funding for poorly thought-out plans for nuclear 
weapons recognizing that because of the enormous cost and the 
importance to our national security they require smart strategies not 
blank checks. Instead it works to keep Americans safe with a 75 percent 
increase in funding for nuclear non-proliferation efforts. It also 
funds the Army Corps of Engineers, strengthening our Nation's 
navigation infrastructure and improving flood control programs.
  Before I highlight some of the more attractive provisions of this 
legislation, which by the way contains no earmarks, let me explain 
briefly why this energy and water legislation is so near and dear to 
the people I represent in the 18th Congressional District of Texas.
  In the past 2 years, Houston, the center of my district, has 
experienced some of the most devastating acts of nature in its history.
  Six years ago this month, in June 2001, Tropical Storm Allison hit 
Southeast Texas. Until Hurricane Katrina, this storm would become the 
costliest tropical storm in U.S. history. Flash flooding initiated 
quite rapidly during Houston's rush hour late Friday afternoon and on 
into the evening hours. Widespread street flooding was the initial 
threat, but the high rainfall amounts forced almost all the major 
Houston area bayou systems into severe flooding, with some to record 
levels. All major freeways in the Houston area were severely flooded at 
at least one location during this event. During this single event 
alone, rainfall in Harris County ranged from just 2 inches in the 
extreme west to in excess of 20 inches over Green's Bayou in the east. 
Countywide, the average rainfall was 8 inches with over two-thirds of 
the county receiving over 10 inches.
  The total damage across Southeast Texas approached $5 billion ($4.88 
billion in Harris County alone). Twenty-two deaths were caused by 
Allison, with each of these fatalities occurred in Harris County. At 
this time, thunderstorms began to train and merge across the Houston 
metro area, and the system evolved into a powerful complex right over 
the most populated portion of our CWA that evening. This complex 
progressed south and east into the early morning hours of Saturday, 
June 9. Very heavy rainfall was observed for up to 10 hours in some 
locations, and rainfall rates of 4 inches or more per hour were 
observed throughout the night. A station in northeast Houston recorded 
over 26 inches of rain in almost 10 hours.
  In response, the Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project was 
launched. TSARP is a joint study effort by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, FEMA, and the Harris County Flood Control District, 
the District. The purpose of the TSARP project is to develop technical 
products that will assist the local community in recovery from the 
devastating flooding, and provide the community with a greater 
understanding of flooding and flood risks. The end product of the study 
is new Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
  TSARP mission statement is: To assist residents of Harris County in 
recovery from Tropical Storm Allison and minimize damages from future 
floods by investigating the flood event and by developing current, 
accurate, and timely flood hazard information.
  TSARP used state-of-the-art technology. TSARP has yielded many 
products that will help us better understand our flood risk. These 
products will assist citizens in making important decisions, and will 
assist public agencies in infrastructure planning. The hoped for end 
result of TSARP is a more informed and disaster resistant community and 
one that is better prepared.
  Purchasing flood insurance before June 18 allowed people to 
``grandfather'' their existing floodplain status and pay lower premiums 
for flood insurance. Once the maps became official on June 18, 
residents and business owners whose properties are categorized in 
higher-risk flood zones on the new maps may pay higher rates.
  According to FEMA, a ``Regulatory Floodway'' means the channel of a 
river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be 
reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively 
increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. 
Communities must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that 
there are no increases in upstream flood elevations. For streams and 
other watercourses where FEMA has provided Base Flood Elevations, BFEs, 
but no floodway has been designated, the community must review 
floodplain development on a case-by-case basis to ensure that increases 
in water surface elevations do not occur, or identify the need to adopt 
a floodway if adequate information is available.
  FEMA regulations say ``Communities must regulate development in these 
floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood 
elevations.'' The City of Houston interprets that as no development 
within the floodway. This is not necessarily correct. Construction can 
take place but it cannot obstruct the water. Elevating the structure 
gets the same effect but the city denies this as they said (debris may 
collect under the structure). They will only allow a remodeling permit 
if the improvements do not exceed 50 percent of the structures value.
  There is one neighborhood along White Oak Bayou that is greatly 
affected. The homes are of higher value than most of the district. 
Alternatives to resolve their issue includes widening the bayou or 
diverting floodwater.
  The Harris County Flood District is now investigating these 
alternatives. Otherwise, the only solution would be a change in the 
city's ordinance allowing construction in the floodway.
  I am looking forward to working with colleagues on the Energy and 
Water Appropriations Subcommittee to explore ways and means of 
resolving this problem so that Houstonians will not be forced out of 
their homes and unable to afford flood insurance.
  Mr. Chairman, let me provide this partial listing of some of the many 
good provisions in this legislation. First, H.R. 2641 will improve U.S. 
waterways and flood protection by increasing funding for the Army Corps 
of Engineers by $713.4 million above the President's request to address 
a $1 billion backlog of operations and needed maintenance. This backlog 
needs to be addressed to sustain the coastal and inland navigation 
infrastructure critical to the U.S. economy, and the gaps in flood 
protection highlighted in Hurricane Katrina.
  Second, the legislation will help reduce dependence on foreign oil 
and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy and energy 
efficiency programs are funded at $1.9 billion--a 50 percent increase 
in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. This is in addition 
to the additional $300 million added in the FY 2007 joint resolution. 
In contrast, the President's FY 2008 request for renewable energy and 
energy efficiency research is the same as it was in 2001 in real terms.
  Funding for research and development of alternative fuels such as 
corn based and cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel is increased by 40 
percent above the President's request. Solar Energy demonstration 
projects receive a 34 percent increase above the President's request. 
There is also $22 million to research new ways of generating power from 
water flow, and $44.3 million for geothermal energy,

[[Page 16532]]

neither of which were funded in the President's request. (This is on 
top of the $95 million for upgrades to existing hydropower dams funded 
under the Army Corps.)
  I could go on and on. This thoughtful legislation provides funding to 
invest in new vehicle technology; energy efficient buildings; 
weatherization; carbon capture and sequestration; and climate change 
science. And it cuts wasteful spending as well.
  For example, H.R. 2641 directs the Energy Department to develop a 
concrete plan to improve its contract management. The Energy Department 
has been on the GAO list of programs that are at high-risk for waste, 
fraud, abuse and mismanagement for seventeen years in a row.
  The bill also cuts Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, funding 
by $285 million below the President's request and $47.5 million below 
2007 for this initiative to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and burn long-
lived radioactive materials. There are concerns that this project is 
unsafe, will cost tens of billions of dollars, and could make it far 
easier for terrorists to obtain plutonium to make nuclear weapons.
  The bill also secures substantial savings by cutting wasteful and 
unnecessary nuclear weapons programs by $5.9 billion, $632 million 
below the President's request and $396 million below 2007. It cuts to 
37 specific weapons program accounts, including the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead program. The existing stockpile will continue to 
provide the Nation's nuclear deterrent for the next two decades, and 
certainly until the President develops a strategic nuclear weapons plan 
to transform the nuclear weapons complex away from its expensive Cold 
War configuration to a more affordable, sustainable structure.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2641 and urge my colleagues to 
join me. I thank Chairman Visclosky for his fine work in bringing this 
exceptional legislation to the House floor where it should receive an 
overwhelmingly favorable vote.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Chairman, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill 
charts an important new direction for improved public health and a 
cleaner environment throughout America. The bill also makes important 
new investments in renewable energy as we must reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions. We must rapidly expand 
the production of clean, alternative fuels and increase energy 
efficiency. Our country has lost momentum due to the Bush-Cheney White 
House's inaction on global warming and energy independence. The new 
Congress will change course today.
  A healthy and clean environment and renewable energy solutions are 
vital to the State of Florida and the Tampa Bay area. In my Tampa Bay 
area district, we are working to increase energy efficiency through 
organizations like the Clean Energy Research Center at the University 
of South Florida. My recent Tampa energy forum ``Turning Green for the 
Red, White and Blue'' drew great community interest. Our neighbors now 
are focusing on commonsense conservation initiatives. Nevertheless, 
leadership at the Federal level is vital.
  The Energy and Water Appropriations bill invests $3 billion in global 
climate change science and in renewable energy technologies that both 
reduce greenhouse gases and help our Nation meet its energy needs. 
Additionally, this bill will provide a 50 percent increase into 
research on energy efficiency and renewable energy, including solar, 
biofuels, hydropower, and geothermal, as well as new vehicle technology 
and energy efficient buildings and homes. Solar energy holds great 
promise for Floridians and I strongly support the new investment of 
$200 million for research, development and demonstration projects to 
make solar energy more affordable.
  On the first day of the new Congress, the House passed legislation to 
repeal $14 billion in taxpayer subsidies given to Big Oil companies 
that are earning record profits while we pay record profits at the 
pump. Those monies now will be channeled into clean alternative energy 
technologies and energy efficiency. Doing so enhances our national 
security as our country will lessen its foreign entanglements with 
questionable, petrocentric nations.
  Climate change is potentially the greatest threat to our national 
security and prosperity. Energy independence is vital to our future. I 
urge the Congress to act swiftly for the sake of my community and all 
Americans.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2641, 
the Energy and Water and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for 
Fiscal Year 2008. I would like to thank Chairman Visclosky and the 
Energy and Water Subcommittee for drafting a bill that clearly defines 
what our Nation's priorities should be in promoting and developing 
sustainable energy sources as well as taking a firm approach to dealing 
with our Nation's nuclear weapons complex.
  This Energy and Water Appropriations bill is making two very 
important statements. The first relates to our Nation's energy path and 
climate change. I believe this bill starts to direct us to where we 
should be--which is on a sustainable energy course. By increasing the 
investment we are making to sustainable energy sources, we are making a 
commitment to developing an energy plan that promotes renewable energy, 
promotes efficiency and promotes conservation.
  Last year, I criticized the Energy and Water bill for continuing the 
status quo and for not putting us on a path for a sustainable energy 
future. Today, the bill we are considering is vastly different. We have 
increased by 52 percent over the President's budget for energy 
efficiency and renewable energy programs. This funding is used for 
energy efficiency programs such as technologies to make buildings more 
efficient and programs like EnergyStar. This bill also provides 
significant funding for alternative energy sources such as biomass, 
solar, and hydropower. These are the technologies of the near future 
and we must make the investment now.
  Equally important is the public policy statement that this bill makes 
about nuclear nonproliferation and how we as a Nation bring rationality 
to our own nuclear weapons complex. Last year Congress approved a 
nuclear cooperation agreement with India. That deal, I believe, created 
a more dangerous and unstable world. We spoke at great length about the 
details of this cooperative agreement. We spoke at great length about 
how good a friend India is to us. We talked about the so-called reality 
of an imperfect ability to control the militarization of nuclear 
reactions. I said last year during that debate, that if we really 
believe that nuclear proliferation and loose nukes are the greatest 
threat to world peace and security, as I do, then we should be holding 
on to every tool we can find to prevent that threat.
  That is why I am pleased that this bill sends a clear message about 
how we view our nuclear weapons complex. I believe that instead of 
wasting billions of additional dollars on a nuclear weapons program we 
don't need and that would only undermine our global nonproliferation 
efforts, our country should be dismantling its excess nuclear weapons 
and working to get other nuclear powers to join us in the effort to 
create a world free of nuclear weapons. Equally important, our country 
should be expanding its effort to secure loose or inadequately 
safeguarded nuclear materials in the former Soviet states. Securing 
these materials is our best insurance policy against terrorists getting 
their hands on such material and using it against us or our allies. For 
these reasons, I am pleased that the Energy and Water bill cuts the 
Department of Energy's portion of the RRW program. We must set a global 
example, and this is a start on moving us towards global 
nonproliferation.
  Also, by way of my background as a scientist and researcher at the 
Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, I understand how essential it is to fully 
invest in programs like the Fusion Energy Sciences Program. I applaud 
the $427.9 million investment in this program. Never has a national 
commitment to fusion energy research been more timely or important to 
our Nation's energy future than it is right now. Fusion energy is the 
power of the sun and the stars, and holds the promise to become an 
economical, safe and clean domestic energy source. Fusion is an energy 
source that has the potential to increase our national energy security, 
while also decreasing overall world carbon dioxide emissions. I am glad 
to see that the Committee has decided to honor our Nation's commitment 
to ITER, which is a seven nation fusion program being developed 
currently in Cadarache, France, by allocating $160 million in funding. 
The remaining $267.9 million will allow the United States to be 
competitive in the development and deployment of fusion energy and to 
train and retrain the next generation of young fusion researchers who 
will be expected to work on ITER and in the field of fusion energy 
research beyond ITER.
  This is a good start for an energy appropriations bill. I thank the 
Chairman for his cooperation and leadership on this bill and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a 
project that deserves the support of every member of this House. The 
Great Lakes Energy Research Park, which is to be located in the heart 
of the district I represent, will be the first Integrated Gasification 
Combined-Cycle facility in the world to co-produce (1) over 728 Mw of 
electric power and (2) permanently sequester over 3.8 million tons per 
year of carbon dioxide which will ultimately recover over 180 million 
barrels of stranded oil. Let me repeat that--180 million barrels of 
stranded oil. I'm not talking about new drilling in environmentally 
sensitive areas

[[Page 16533]]

and I'm not talking about opening up new wells. I am talking about 
finally tapping much needed resources that yesterday's technology 
simply could not drive out of the ground. Additionally, it is important 
to note that this bed of oil reserves is located in the geographic 
center of Michigan--not in the Great Lakes, and far from Hurricane 
Alley, where most of our crude wells lie. As we learned from Katrina, 
geographic diversity is as an important topic in the energy debate as 
is alternative energies. So, as we discuss utilizing new technologies, 
clean technologies to solve our dependence on foreign crude, we would 
be foolish to ignore the types of technology being put in place in 
Alma, Michigan.
  This project, however, is about much more than recovering stranded 
oil. This facility is designed in such a way to virtually utilize every 
byproduct of energy production. With this type of forward thinking it 
is no wonder that the project has received support from a wide variety 
of local community groups, institutions, citizens and organizations. 
Included among the list of proponents are the City of Alma, Michigan, 
Firstbank of Alma, Michigan, the Gratiot Medical Center, Alma College, 
the Gratiot County Board of Commissioners and the Gratiot Area Chamber 
of Commerce.
  Mr. Chairman, as American families and businesses grapple with rising 
energy costs, the Great Lakes Energy Research Park can be a part of the 
solution. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this unique 
effort to produce more energy here in America.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Altmire) having assumed the chair, Mr. Andrews, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2641) 
making appropriations for energy and water development and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________