[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19151-19155]
[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}  1300


                     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. Tierney (Acting Chairman) in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, June 20, 2007, the amendment by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Hinchey) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through 
page 40, line 18.
  No further amendment to the bill may be offered except those 
specified in the previous order of the House of today, which is at the 
desk.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rothman

  Mr. ROTHMAN. 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. Rothman:
       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 for the Green Maintenance Building in North Bergen, 
     New Jersey.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to claim 
the 5 minutes in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, even though I 
am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will not take my full 5 minutes. This 
amendment strikes an earmark for a project requested by myself and 
Congressman Sires who together represent the town of North Bergen, New 
Jersey.
  The funds allocated in this bill would have gone towards the 
construction of a new public works building in North

[[Page 19152]]

Bergen, New Jersey, that would have repaired and maintained all of the 
vehicles for that municipality, as well as all of the fire trucks for 
the surrounding five towns of Weehawken, Guttenberg, West New York and 
Union City.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to accept the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, 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 Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to set the stage for what is occurring on the 
House floor at this point in time because it is my privilege to submit 
to the House for final passage H.R. 2641, the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008, with its 
supplemental report.
  On July 10, the Appropriations Committee approved the supplemental 
report unanimously by voice vote. As I have said before, this is a good 
bill and it merits the support of the entire House.
  I would emphasize that the money spent in this bill, whether 
enumerated originally by the administration or by the Congress, are 
investments, investments in our national security, investments in our 
energy security, and investments in the health and safety of our 
citizens. They are investments to create a climate and to build the 
infrastructure that encourages the development of new, good-paying jobs 
in our country.
  To the extent we have made changes in the administration's priority, 
the changes have been to enhance the effectiveness of the programs in 
this bill and to complement them.
  I would like to give two examples. All one needs to do is look at the 
West Sacramento Flood Control Project as proof that we are dealing with 
fundamental issues, like ensuring people and their families' lives are 
secure and their homes and their businesses are protected from 
devastating floods. In Tennessee, the Center Hill Dam is another 
project that Congress has funded to control flood waters and generate 
clean, safe and efficient hydroelectric power.
  There are also examples of administration funding requests that 
originated in Congress years ago. For fiscal year 2006, Congress 
designated funds to support activities at the supervisory control and 
data acquisition test facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory. This 
system has proven itself so useful in helping to improve the 
reliability and robustness of the electric power grid that for fiscal 
year 2008 the administration has included the project as part of its 
project request. If nothing else, this shows how the executive and 
legislative branches can work together to fund important projects for 
the Nation, regardless of who initiated support for the idea.
  Mr. Chairman, as we consider today's supplemental report to the 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill, I urge my colleagues to keep 
these factors in mind. The specific projects enumerated in this report 
serve a purpose: To improve the quality of life for our citizenry and 
to make advances on key priorities facing our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back 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 appreciate the fair and bipartisan manner 
in which the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) as our chairman has 
used to put this supplemental report together. I fully support the list 
of congressionally directed projects that it contains. I encourage 
Members to support these projects and to vote for final passage of the 
underlying Energy and Water bill.
  When we first brought this bill to the floor roughly a month ago, I 
expressed my concern about the absence of detailed project guidance on 
how to spend this much money. The supplemental report that is before 
the committee today resolves that concern.
  Chairman Visclosky and I, and our respective staffs, engaged in a 
lengthy bipartisan effort to sort through the thousands of earmark 
requests that we received. We screened the large number of requests to 
select the projects that had the most merit and were the best fit for 
inclusion in the Energy and Water bill. We have complied fully with 
Chairman Obey's direction to reduce the value of our energy earmarks by 
one-half compared to the amount we funded in fiscal year 2006.
  The Corps of Engineers faces an enormous backlog of work, somewhere 
between $12 billion and $60 billion, and that is before the pending 
WRDA bill adds another $13 billion of unfunded requirements. There is a 
significant need for additional funding for water resources 
infrastructure, above and beyond what the administration requested. 
This supplement provides another $770 million for specific Corps water 
projects. Within a total appropriation of $5.58 billion for the Corps, 
less than 14 percent is dedicated to congressionally directed projects. 
Every one of those projects is already authorized, and every one has 
been reviewed by the Corps to be sure they have the capability to 
execute it. Until we make some progress with the backlog of ongoing 
work, we continue the past practice of not funding any Corps new 
starts.
  On the Department of Energy side, the committee recommended $246.5 
million for 263 specific projects, which represents a 50 percent 
reduction from the amount of DOE earmarks contained in our fiscal year 
2006 bill. Many of these projects are intended to demonstrate 
alternative energy technologies. It is important to note that we are 
spending billions of dollars on DOE's energy security mission, which 
includes the research, development, demonstration and deployment of 
advanced energy technologies. If this research is to be worth the 
investment, and if this research is to improve our energy security by 
reducing our dependence on imported oil and reducing the environmental 
impact of burning fossil fuels, then these technologies must ultimately 
be adopted by the private sector.
  Therefore, a significant number of our Department of Energy earmarks 
are ``green'' buildings to demonstrate alternative energy technologies. 
It is important that we show the American people that there are 
alternatives to burning fossil fuels for power generation, for 
transportation, and for heating and cooling, so that builders and 
consumers know these alternatives are available and affordable. We 
intentionally put these technology demonstrations in high-traffic 
settings designed to get a lot of public exposure, such as museums, 
educational institutions, and community buildings, in order to maximize 
the value of these demonstrations.
  We have a constitutional responsibility to appropriate funds for the 
Federal agencies. That means we do not simply rubber-stamp the 
administration's project requests, but rather, we put our own mark on 
the annual agency budgets. That is what this supplement represents. I 
support this supplement to our bill, and I encourage the other Members 
to do so as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

       Sec. 503. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds made available in this Act may be used for the 
     Achieving a College Education Program at Maricopa Community 
     Colleges.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities--
     National Nuclear Security Administration--Office of the 
     Administrator'' is hereby reduced by $1,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit a million 
dollars, and reduce the cost of the bill by a consistent amount, from 
being

[[Page 19153]]

used to fund an earmark for the ACE Program at the Maricopa County 
Community Colleges.
  While I am often criticized for meddling in the congressional 
districts of other Members in my attempts to make Federal spending on 
earmarks transparent, that accusation would be unfounded with this 
amendment.
  As the saying goes, ``all politics is local,'' and this amendment 
makes that a truism, with a portion of Maricopa County within the 
boundaries of the district I represent.
  As I am sure the sponsor of this earmark will be proud to tell you, 
the Achieving a College Education program was started in 1988 at one of 
the community colleges in the Maricopa system, and has spread to all 10 
of its institutions.
  According to the ACE Program Web site, the program is a partnership 
between community colleges and local high schools that was designed to 
reduce dropouts among at-risk high school students and transition them 
to community colleges and university studies.
  It would be foolish and not truthful for me to stand here and say the 
program is not making a valuable contribution to Maricopa County. 
However, the criteria for receiving another Federal handout of $1 
million cannot and should not rest simply on whether a program is doing 
valuable things.
  I am certain that at many, if not all, of the hundreds upon hundreds 
of community colleges across the country there are important programs 
that are making valuable contributions to their communities. Surely the 
taxpayer shouldn't have to fund all of those programs. So how do we 
choose? How does Congress decide which important, valuable programs get 
funded with taxpayer dollars and which do not?
  The willingness of Members of Congress to give Federal handouts to a 
select few has led to more than $5 billion in earmarks in this 
appropriations bill, a bill that is more than $1 billion over the 
President's request and has garnered a veto threat because of it.
  In addition, this earmark is focused on education and raises the 
question of why it is being funded out of the account of the Office of 
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. It 
is my understanding that Federal funding for the ACE Program came 
through the Department of Housing and Urban Development in previous 
years.
  Other earmarks in the account of the Office of the Administrator for 
educational programs seem to highlight math and science education. 
While components of the ACE Program highlight math, science, technology 
or engineering, this appears to be only one facet of the program and 
not the sole purpose at all. In fact, other components also appear to 
highlight health services, business industry technology, community 
service, adult education, personal finance, and other areas.
  I would submit to my colleagues again that if simply having a program 
that makes a valuable contribution were enough to warrant being awarded 
millions of dollars, the Treasury would soon be empty.
  Further, I would submit that an earmark of this variety is misplaced 
in the Energy and Water appropriations bill, and should at the very 
least be considered in the upcoming Labor, Health and Human Services 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Pastor), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, as the sponsor of this program, as my 
colleague from Arizona has told you, it has been in existence for a 
number of years and has in the past received Federal funding. With the 
Federal funding, we have expanded this program to all of the community 
colleges in the Maricopa County Community College System.
  My colleague asked the question why in DOE and why the Office of the 
Administrator? Four or 5 years ago, the Department of Energy, through 
the Secretary then, it was decided that the Department of Energy was 
going to get involved in the educational programs dealing with 
historically black colleges and also with Spanish-serving institutions. 
It was to ensure that there would be a stream of people into math and 
science programs.
  As you know, our President has a number of times emphasized and has 
began initiatives through the Department of Energy that would help 
recruit students into the math and science classes. So when the 
Secretary of Energy made that commitment, knowing that that program was 
available to colleges and universities, a presentation was made to the 
Department of Energy whether this program, ACE, would be one that they 
had an interest in. In one of the hearings ACE was brought up.
  So the Department of Energy with the board and administrators of the 
Maricopa County Community College System began negotiating and set up 
this program. The intent is to serve minority students that are 
enrolled in schools throughout Maricopa county, to assist them in a 
path of math and science. It is in cooperation with the community 
colleges, because MCCG is encouraging these students to go through the 
community college system and then take them to the university.
  As this program was presented to me 3 years ago by the Maricopa 
County community colleges and was presented to the Department of 
Energy, because of the many success stories and it is a program that 
needs to continue.
  The reason it is in DOE is because that is where the program is and 
that is where the moneys are allocated for this type of program.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the 
gentleman who just spoke, Mr. Pastor, and I know of his concern for 
education and his commitment there.
  The point I would make again is there are many valuable programs out 
there. There are thousands and thousands of community colleges out 
there. I would think that we simply have to stop saying all right, we 
are going to fund this one or we are going to fund that one without 
some kind of criteria that should be set by somebody else other than 
Members of Congress because we are in a position where it happens 
politically.
  Now that is not to say that decisions by Federal agencies aren't 
political. They often are. That's the responsibility of oversight, for 
us to step in and say you ought to have this criteria or this merit-
based selection process or this competitive grant process.
  But for us to say we don't like the way the Federal agencies do it so 
we are going to do it ourselves, I would think is not the wisest 
course. With that, I would urge support of the amendment. We simply 
can't fund all of the programs, the good programs that are out there, 
and maintain any type of position here in Congress of being equal or 
being good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. With that, I would urge 
support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Pastor).
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, the program in the Department of Energy is 
geared to get minority students into a pathway of math and science. I 
did not write the program. All I did was act as a facilitator between 
the community college system and the Department of Energy. There is an 
agreement. The agreement was signed 3 years ago between the Department 
of Energy and the Maricopa County community colleges. In that 
agreement, DOE has filled out the requirements of the program that the 
community colleges have had to adhere to, it is an agreement between 
the Department of Energy and the community college system.

                              {time}  1315

  All I did was facilitated between the community college and the 
Department of Energy, and I would ask my

[[Page 19154]]

colleagues to reject this amendment, because the program assists 
minority students to achieve a college education. It's an initiative 
that the President has put forward, and the Department of Energy has 
taken on the initiative. This agreement is between the community 
college system and the Department of Energy.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

       Sec. 503. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds made available in this Act may be used for the Alliance 
     for NanoHealth.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``Department of Energy--Science'' is 
     hereby reduced by $750,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $750,000, and 
reduce the cost of the bill by a consistent amount, from being used to 
fund an earmark for the Alliance for NanoHealth, or ANH.
  The ANH is comprised of seven universities and scientific 
institutions headquartered in Houston, Texas.
  ANH's mission is to collectively bridge the disciplines to develop 
nanotechnology-based solutions to unresolved problems in medicine.
  This earmark, according to the certification letters submitted by the 
sponsor, will be used for electron microscopy equipment, a high-
resolution CCD camera, freezing apparatuses as well, for training and 
for upgrades for shared equipment purchases.
  In 2004, the Federal Government provided $2.4 million in start-up 
funding for the alliance through an earmark in the Department of 
Defense appropriations bill. In fiscal year 2005, the Alliance for 
NanoHealth received a total of $7.4 million in Federal earmarks.
  In addition to the earmark in this bill, ANH is scheduled to receive 
another $1 million for fiscal year 2008 in the Commerce, Justice and 
Science appropriations bill.
  There is a competitive and transparent process for awarding Federal 
research contracts and Federal grants, but this is not it.
  Let me be clear. I congratulate the alliance for its work and for its 
contributions to society. I believe that we, as lawmakers, should do 
everything we can to encourage more private sector research and 
development activity, but there is a troubling and growing tendency to 
replace private sector activity with governmental intervention. This 
earmark bears witness to that.
  Just look at the 2006 endowment ratings for the university members of 
the Alliance for NanoHealth: Number 4 on the list, University of Texas 
system, $13.2 billion; number 10 on the list, Texas A&M, $5.6 billion; 
number 55, Baylor Medical School, $1.1 billion; and the list goes on.
  Let us not allow the Federal Government to push private donors aside 
and remove the incentive for them to contribute in this or any other 
endeavor.
  And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have some kind of discussion 
on this, but apparently not. Apparently the sponsor of the earmark 
doesn't want to speak to it or we're just going to leave it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  We used a bipartisan process, and I was very involved in strict 
adherence to the applicable House rules and a thorough examination of 
Member requests. This process resulted in funding recommendations for 
the projects that we considered the most meritorious. This project that 
this amendment attacks is a legitimate use of Federal funds to further 
the development of the Department of Energy's mission.
  In closing, I believe this amendment has no basis and should be 
defeated, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, there is another disturbing trend here. It's 
often thought that if there is a bipartisan basis for the offering of 
these earmarks that it's okay. As long as 60 percent goes to the 
majority, 40 percent to the minority, then it's okay whatever you fund. 
That shouldn't be the basis on which we distribute taxpayer dollars at 
all.
  In this case, for science grants there is a competitive and 
transparent process at the Federal agency level. If we're not happy 
with that process, we should intervene in that process, change it, 
mandate a more competitive process or a change in the process, instead 
of supplanting that process with one of our own that is far less 
competitive, that really is just political, because it pits one Member 
against another or one committee against another.
  That's not how money should be awarded. If the agencies have too much 
money, we should cut it. If they don't have enough, we should add more. 
We should stipulate, we should mandate, we should have oversight of 
those agencies. But basically saying we're just going to have our own 
process because we don't like what they're doing over there is not the 
right way to go.
  And I would say that this earmark is a good example of that, and for 
that reason, I offer the amendment and would urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

       Sec. 503. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds made available in this Act may be used for Concurrent 
     Technology Corporation.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``Department of Energy--Fossil 
     Energy Research and Development'' is hereby reduced by 
     $1,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I was tempted just not to offer any other 
amendments and just offer this one because this one is important for 
everyone to focus on because it points at problems not just with the 
earmark itself but with the process that we have in the House. And I 
would submit that we are not following that process as we should.
  This amendment would strike funding for the Center for Instrumented 
Critical Infrastructure. The center is to receive $1 million in 
taxpayer funding in this bill.
  When searching on the Web, my staff and I were unable to find the 
center's Web site. I'm not sure whether the center currently exists or 
whether this earmark creates the center. I would appreciate if the 
sponsor of this earmark would clear that up.
  All the bill says is that it funds $1 million for the Center for 
Instrumented

[[Page 19155]]

Critical Infrastructure in Pennsylvania. However, when you look at the 
certification letter that each Member now, according to our earmark 
rule, is required to submit, you see that the earmark is actually going 
to the Concurrent Technology Corporation based in Jonestown, 
Pennsylvania. This is a leading earmark recipient in multiple 
appropriation bills over the years.
  Currently in this year, I believe in the Intelligence authorization 
bill this same group, Concurrent Technology, received two other 
earmarks. Why isn't that in the earmark itself in what we were handed? 
We only learned that through the certification letter. Is the earmark 
to go to the Instrumented Critical Infrastructure Center or to 
Concurrent Technology? I would love to have that clarified here.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I take it the sponsor of this earmark is not 
here to talk about it, but if I could ask the chairman where the 
earmark is supposed to go. Does the earmark go to this Center for 
Instrumented Critical Infrastructure or to Concurrent Technology?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I'm sorry, I did not hear the gentleman's question.
  Mr. FLAKE. I'm wondering, in the report that accompanied the bill, it 
mentioned that the earmark was to go to the Center for Instrumented 
Critical Infrastructure, but the certification letter says that it's 
going to go to that but the earmark should actually go to Concurrent 
Technology Corporation. Which is it?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. It is my understanding that it will go to the Center 
for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure.
  Mr. FLAKE. Does that center currently exist?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. At this time, I do not know, but if it does not exist, 
the moneys could not go to it.
  Mr. FLAKE. We were told in this process early on by the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee that a different process was needed, that 
the earmarks should be added later in conference and not now because 
the Appropriations Committee simply couldn't vet or scrub these 
earmarks well enough. I would submit that this is a perfect example of 
that.
  We've had another example. One earmark was actually withdrawn, one on 
the list that I was to offer, because it hadn't been adequately 
scrubbed. I would submit that this one should be as well, when the 
chairman of the relevant subcommittee can't tell us if this center even 
exists. We don't know if it even exists, if it's created by this 
earmark.
  Concurrent Technology has been the recipient of millions upon 
millions of dollars over the years. The executives in Concurrent 
Technology contribute handsomely to Members of Congress. So it receives 
a lot of earmarks. It seems to be an earmark incubator of some type, an 
earmark that begets more earmarks.
  And yet we have the report that comes with the bill that doesn't even 
mention Concurrent Technology. It just mentions this center as if it 
already existed. We don't even know if it does. We can't even find any 
information on it, and apparently we can't even get that information 
from the Appropriations Committee.
  So I would submit that this is what this process is about. This is 
why we come to the floor. This is why we invite the sponsor of the 
earmark to defend the earmark. But I would say again, does this center 
exist? Do we even know if it exists? How do we know if it's a good 
center or a bad center? Is this Concurrent Technology, which already 
receives millions and millions of dollars in other bills, worthy of 
another earmark to create another center?
  These are the questions that we have to ask.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I guess I will finish off. I will call for a 
vote on this one, but I think it's important when Members are voting on 
this earmark and whether to retain it that we have to know what we know 
and know what we don't know.
  We don't know if this center even exists. We are appropriating money 
for a center where the Appropriations Committee that has a 
responsibility to vet this earmark can't even tell us here if this even 
exists. We don't know that. We're voting on an earmark where in the 
report it says it goes to the center, but here in the certification 
letter it mentions Concurrent Technology, a private company. Which is 
it?
  If we don't know these facts, we don't know what's going on here, I 
would say the thing to do is to vote this down, to actually vote for 
the amendment and wait until the Appropriations Committee actually has 
time to scrub and to vet these earmarks a little more carefully.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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.
  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. 
Davis of Illinois) having assumed the chair, Mr. Tierney, 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.

                          ____________________