Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5427) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to submit to the House for its consideration H.R. 5427, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2007. The Appropriations Committee approved this bill unanimously on May 16, and I believe this is a good bill that merits the support of the entire House.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide range of Federal programs, including such diverse matters as flood control, navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste disposal, advanced scientific research, applied energy research, maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation activities.

The total funding for energy and water development for the fiscal year 2007 is $30.017 billion. This funding amount represents an increase of $546 million above the budget request and $172 million below the current fiscal year. I want to point out to everyone that our subcommittee's 302 allocation is right at the level and provides adequate funding to meet the priority needs of the House.

Title I is the Army Corps of Engineers. This provides the funding for the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps and the formerly utilized Sites Remedial Action Program which is executed by the corps and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.

The committee recommends a total of $4.983 billion for the title I activities, an increase of $251 million above the budget request and $345 million below the enacted level for the current year, separate from emergency supplemental appropriations.

In recent years, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion and I think our committee's, the corps' civil works program had lost its way. Instead of taking care of the Nation's most pressing water resources needs, the corps tried to keep everybody happy by spreading its limited resources across an ever-enlarging set of projects; and, frankly, Congress has been a big part of that problem, giving the corps more and more projects to do but, frankly, not enough money to do them.

Our committee has taken steps in the last several years to put the corps on the road to fiscal recovery and to restore the focus on getting the most critical projects done efficiently. As before, we do not fund any new starts and do not carry any new project authorizations. I might say we not only cut out the Members' new starts in the corps, we cut out the President of the United States' new starts. We treat everybody the same. Instead, we concentrate our limited resources on the completion of ongoing projects. This will save money.

I support the administration's attempt to apply performance-based criteria so that resources are applied to the highest-priority items. This is still a work in progress, and we know that the ratio of remaining costs and remaining benefits should not be the sole major of a project's merits, but I give OMB, and this is hard for me to do, credit for listening for a change to our concerns and, frankly, moving in what we all believe is the right direction.

One obvious consequence of folks seeing limited funding on the most important projects is that fewer House Members will receive funding for corps water projects in their districts. We added $251 million to address Member needs for additional water projects. As in prior years, we favored projects that could complete a useful increment of work in fiscal year 2007.

We also continue the initiatives we started last year to improve fiscal management in the corps. These initiatives have administration support. We maintain the reprogramming guidelines that we put in place last year, and we establish a fund to begin paying back some reprogramming comments that were made in previous years.

We included language last year significantly limiting the corps' ability to misuse continuing contracts and to continue those limitations in fiscal year 2007. I have directed the corps to hire a commercial audit firm to provide Congress with a full accounting of these contracts.

The current year is a transition from the old way of doing business to a new one in which the corps is more accountable for how it uses the funds that Congress appropriates for water projects. Frankly, in my opinion, these changes were long overdue; and we are confident they will put the corps on a more secure footing in the future.

I would also like to talk about title II, which is the Bureau of Reclamation. Title II of our bill provides $941 million for the Department of the Interior, including $40 million for the Central Utah Project and $901 million for the Bureau of Reclamation. This represents an increase of $17 million above the budget request and $114 million less than the amount appropriated for the current fiscal year.

We included an additional $6 million for the bureau to assist existing and future flood risks in the California Bay delta area and included the administration proposal to rescind $88 million of balances for at-risk desert terminal lakes.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to discuss title III of the bill, which is the Department of Energy.

The Department of Energy receives a total of $24.37 billion in the Energy and Water Development bill, $299 million over the budget request and $326 million above the current new fiscal year.

The budget request proposes a number of major new initiatives for the Department of Energy in fiscal year 2007, the American Competitiveness Initiative, which strengthens basic research by increasing funds for DOE's Office of Science by $505 million, for a total of $4.6 billion. We fully fund the budget request for the Office of Science, and we provide an additional $30 million of headroom to fund House earmarks in the science account. The Advanced Energy Initiative would increase funding for providing clean technologies.

We generally fund all of these accounts at or above the requested funding levels funding. Funding in our bill for research in biomass energy increases 65 percent over last year. Research and development on solar energy increases 78 percent over last year. Research on hydrogen technology increases 26 percent over last year.

We have also increased funding for vehicle technologies, building technologies and industrial technologies. As with the science earmarks, we also provide additional funding for the House earmarks so that these do not harm the underlying applied science research programs.

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, is an initiative to recycle spent nuclear fuel with a first-year request of $250 million; and while we believe very strongly that we need to recycle our spent fuel, we have serious policy, technical and financial reservations about the GNEP proposal. It appears that the administration funded the GNEP by cutting other essential energy programs such as university nuclear energy education. We restore these funds and limit GNEP funding to $120 million in fiscal year 2007.

We terminated the State energy programs. This amounts to $50 million spread among 50 States plus the territories. From our perspective, the States are fully capable of administering their own State energy programs. Where there is sufficient energy projects that exceed a State's capabilities, then those projects should be submitted to the committee as part of the DOE budget request. We do not support taking Federal funds from our bill and giving those States funds to spend.

I might add that the group that came in, that lobbies for this, is a group located in Washington created by the States, funded by our money, to lobby us. So what do we do? We send the money out to the States.

First of all, we collect it in taxes, we take a cut off of it here, then we send it back to the States, they take another cut, and they fund all these special people. The costs go as high as 52 percent, and then they do these little

grants. We think if they need them they ought to do them; and if they really need them that bad, we ought to fund them.

We fully fund the request for the Yucca Mountain repository of $545 million and provide an additional $30 million for interim storage contingent upon authorization. Unfortunately, Yucca Mountain is on a schedule that will not allow it to accept significant quantities of commercial spent fuel until the end of the decade at the earliest.

The GNEP initiative to recycle spent fuel is on a similar schedule. The Department estimates that the Federal Government incurs a liability, and I want people to listen to this, of $500 million per year for each year that the repository is delayed. In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may not be able to issue a waste competence determination for any new reactors if the Federal Government does not provide some tangible solution to the problem of accumulating spent fuel. That is why we include $30 million for the Department to explore its options for interim storage.

The Department says it needs additional statutory authorization for interim storage. If that authorization is not enacted by the end of the fiscal year 2007, then the remaining funds will revert to the effort to begin the process of selecting a site for a second nuclear waste repository.

We continue our efforts to reform the DOE nuclear weapons complex. The committee views the reform of the weapons complex as a package deal. We will move forward with a reliable replacement warhead but only if accompanied by actions to consolidate the footprint of production complex, consolidating special nuclear fuel materials and accelerating dismantlement.

I hope people will listen to this next paragraph, because this is probably one of the most outrageous expenditures we have done. It is one we have to get on with. We have to get it done, but the cost escalation of this project drives me out of my mind and I think most Members, if they would listen.

The largest environmental cleanup project in the country, the waste treatment plant in Hanford, is billions over budget and 6 years behind schedule. The cost growth of this project is an increase of $6 billion in only 5 years; and, frankly, we still do not know what it will cost, nor can they tell us.

We direct the Department to make several major management changes to this project. The Department must complete 90 percent of design before construction of major facilities, and it must impose a tighter linkage between contract payments and contract performance.

Most importantly, our bill requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's oversight of nuclear safety at the waste treatment plant, and we direct the Department to transfer $10 million to the NRC for this purpose. Fiscal year 2007 funding for the waste treatment plant is $600 million, a reduction of $90 million from the request, but an increase of $9 million over the current year.

I would point out that our recommended funding level of $600 million is $80 million higher than what the Government Accountability Office recommended as needed for fiscal year 2007. We do increase funding for other cleanup activities at Hanford, primarily to mitigate the risk of radioactive contamination from reaching the Columbia River.

Total funding for all DOE environmental cleanup activities, both defense related and nondefense, is $644 million, an increase of $161 million. The committee provides a total of $1.59 billion for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities, a decrease of $133 million from the budget request. This reduction to the bottom line total for nuclear nonproliferation is due to the elimination of funding for construction of the mixed oxide project and associated pit disassembly and conversion facility at the Savannah River Site.

In 2000, the United States and Russia each agreed to eliminate 34 metric tons of excess weapons grade plutonium. While MOX is a far more expensive option for plutonium disposal than immobilization, it was felt several years ago that it was worth doing to encourage the Russians to do their own MOX plant. Well, guess what folks? The Russians are not coming. Listen again: The Russians are not coming.

The Russian government signaled this spring that they no longer have any interest in proceeding with their own MOX project, so there is no longer any compelling nonproliferation reason to build the MOX plant. Earlier this week, I met the head of RosAtom, the Russian atomic energy agency. He confirmed that the Russians have no interest in spending any of their own money on MOX activities in Russia.

Now, they did tell us that they would build it if we would provide all the money, because, they said, if we have to put money into something, we don't want to do that because we think it is too expensive; we think there is better technology, and we need to move on. They view MOX as an expensive outdated technology for plutonium disposal.

In addition, the GAO tells us that the cost estimate on this facility has risen from $1 billion in 2002 to over $3.6 billion in 2006, and the project is already 8 years behind. Now, if you look at Hanford as any example, what do you think this thing is going to wind up at? And this is a deal that the Russians say they don't think the technology is any good. At the beginning, when we put it together, we didn't think it was that good, but we thought we could get them into the deal by doing this, so they said, let's go ahead with the deal.

To deal with the plutonium already stored at the Savannah River Site, we should use the cheaper immobilization option. The only remaining rationale to continue the MOX plant is simply as a jobs program for certain States, and I don't think that is a compelling reason to spend several billion dollars of taxpayers' money. There is not 34 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium in South Carolina at this time, and the plutonium that is there wouldn't be able to be used in the MOX anyway, because it is of a different type than that which would be used for the MOX program.

The requested fiscal year 2007 construction funding for MOX is applied to other priority nonproliferation activities, and roughly two- thirds of it is kept at the Savannah River Site for plutonium immobilization activities and to meet environmental cleanup needs at that site.

Title IV, Independent Agencies: title IV of our bill provides $228 million for several regional commissions and independent agencies. The committee recommendation provides the requested funding for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the Delta Regional Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Inspector General and the Nuclear Waste Technical Board.

The committee reduces the funding, and if I had my way I would take it down to zero, and I tried to get those that are offering amendments to take this down to zero, but they didn't take me up on it, the Appalachian Regional Commission, which my State gets money for. But, again, it is like the State program: We send money here. We send money back there. And the Governors run around creating a bureaucracy and go do the little projects, and nobody really knows kind of what they do.

I have had letters from all kinds of people who say they don't support excess spending. They do not like earmarks, but everybody seems to like the little earmarks that the Governors do in these little programs back in their State. So I cut the money. The President's request was around $60 million. And OMB always tells me they are so cost effective down there; I don't know why they don't look at this program. And I cut it back to $35 million.

The first year, I cut it back to zero, and then we had to fund it when we got to conference. Unfortunately, that will probably happen again, but I don't like that. But if I had my way, I would cut out all these little commissions because I just think they take away from a lot of good work that the Congress does.

We have also put an additional $40 million of budget authority to provide for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to address anticipated license applications for new reactors, which I hope we can really move forward with.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to include some further observations on our bill.

I think the committee has produced a very responsible bill that makes sound investment decisions for the future of our agencies and, frankly, for the future of our country. I believe we have one of the best Secretaries of Energy that we have had in a long time. The DOE budget request for fiscal year 2007 reflects some very clear policy choices made by the Secretary in favor of basic science research and applied energy research.

While we don't rubber-stamp every one of the Secretary's priorities, I very much respect that he has been willing to articulate his vision for the Department of Energy and has been willing to make some hard funding choices to support that vision. Frankly, we wish we saw some of that same vision and leadership in the Corps of Engineers.

The devastating consequences of the hurricanes that hit the gulf coast last year demonstrates what happens when we make the wrong investments in critical water resources infrastructure.

The gulf hurricanes served as a wake-up call for many other parts of the country, such as Sacramento, that have inadequate flood protection.

Last fall, we asked the corps to provide Congress with a ``top 10'' list of the flood control and navigation infrastructure needs in the country. The corps was surprisingly unable or not allowed to respond to this simple request, and that tells me the corps has lost sight of its national mission and has no clear vision for projects it ought to be doing in the future.

We have asked the corps to prepare 5-year budget plans, and the corps has made real progress in making these a useful planning tool, but we have not got there yet.

We have also tasked the National Academy of Public Administration to identify sensible criteria for prioritizing the most worthy projects in the future. But, frankly, what is

still lacking is a long-term vision of what the Nation's water resources infrastructure should look like in the future. ``More of the same'' is not a thoughtful answer, nor is it a responsible answer in times of constrained budgets.

After the New Orleans experience, should we continue to rely solely on levees for urban flood protection? What should our deepwater and inland navigation system look like in 20 years? Nobody right now can tell me that, and I have been asking that for a couple of years.

And how should the corps be structured and managed to meet these changing times? The committee is determined to work with the corps, with our colleagues in the Congress, and with outside groups to help the corps craft a better vision for the Nation's water resources in the future.

Our country is also in an energy crisis, and we have the responsibility to do everything we can in our bill to address that. I feel our bill, within the limits of our jurisdiction, does that. Our bill provides significant funding increases for research on renewable energy and nuclear energy resources. This research is not going to get us the results overnight, but it puts us on a long-term path to increasing energy independence.

In short, this bill supports a variety of energy efficiency programs that can realize savings immediately. The bill increases funding for weatherization, energy savings programs for the Federal Government, vehicle technologies, building technologies, and industrial technologies, all efforts in the near term to find energy savings wherever we can.

Now let me talk about earmarks.

My goal for this year's bill is to earmark less than we did last year. The number of incoming Member requests to our subcommittee was down slightly from last year. In fiscal year 2007, we received 2,957 requests, a reduction of 17 percent from the 3,572 requests submitted in fiscal year 2006.

By comparison to the total value of $1.24 billion of earmarks and congressional adds that we carried in our bill and report last year, we have only $1.4 billion this year. This is a reduction of $200 million, or 16 percent. Frankly, if we include congressional adds and programmatic increases and focus only on project-specific earmarks, then our earmarks total only 1 percent of a $30 billion appropriations bill.

Most importantly, most of the earmarks in our bill are fully funded, meaning they do not compete with administration priorities. And I want to say once again we not only take out ours where we have to, we take out the President's, and last year we took out a number on the Senate when we got to conference.

We have produced a very responsible House bill. If you want to see real earmark reform, then we encourage our colleagues in the other body to live by the same earmark levels that we have in our bill and to provide funding headroom for those earmarks so they do not adversely impact the base programs of our agencies.

Lastly, I want to thank all members of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor. Our subcommittee held four more hearings than last year, including two intensive oversight hearings on the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant and on reform of the DOE nuclear weapons complex. I appreciate our members' attention and participation in these hearings.

I particularly want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). He has been a true partner in this bill. We have had some hard-fought wins in this bill and have continued to work together. This is truly a bipartisan bill that represents the best of this Congress. This is the way I believe our constituents expect their representatives to work together. I am proud of our bipartisan process.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis, and the ranking member, Mr. Obey, for their support and for allowing us to move this bill forward in an expeditious manner.

Lastly, I want to thank the staff of this subcommittee, and it is truly a bipartisan staff. Kevin Cook is our clerk, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, Taunja Berquam and Tracy LaTurner, and I thank them for their hard work on this bill. I also want to thank Dixon Butler of the minority staff, and both Kenny Kraft from my office and Peder Maarbjerg of Mr. Visclosky's office.

I might add that Peder is going to be leaving. This is his last bill. He has done a great job. He has always been great for everybody to work with. He is headed off to law school. Mr. Visclosky and I are both lawyers; I am not sure that he took our advice, but he is doing it anyway. We want to wish him well in his new career.

I also want to acknowledge our agency detailees. The formerly single Tony DiGiovanni, and he just got married last week. We tried to advise him, but he didn't listen and got married. He is from the Department of Energy. And I am probably going to hear from a lot of people about that, but I have been married to my first wife for 47 years, so I guess I can get away with that maybe a little bit.

And also Debbie Willis from the Corps of Engineers for their invaluable assistance in putting this bill together.

If you see the hard work that goes into putting these bills together and all of the detail and especially the phone calls we get asking: How did I do in the bill? How come I didn't get more? What do you mean this is a new start? What do you mean?

Everybody thinks that their thing is the most important thing. We tried to do the best we can. I am sure we made some mistakes, and we will try to take care of those in conference on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that this research and development that we are funding in this bill needs to have a pathway to the marketplace. As we move forward to a conference with the Senate, we will both, Mr. Visclosky and myself, keep the gentleman's concerns in mind, as we agree.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes a change to existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment does change the existing law.

Therefore, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, section 202 of WRDA 1999 requires the use of continuing contracts. When the corps decides to move forward on a project, it must use a continuing contract.

You need multi-year contracting authority. Without it, the corps would be in anti-deficiency. This permits the corps to obligate the Federal Government in future fiscal years priority appropriations. The out-year costs of continuing contracts are not fully budgeted.

This is an irresponsible use of continuing contracts; and, frankly, something has got to be done. If the authorizers will not do it, then the Appropriations Committee will.

There are instances where continuing contracts make sense, but the corps, not the contractor, needs to control the spending rate. It must be no more than is available to the project.

We requested the GAO review the corps' use of this mechanism, and early findings are similar to the reprogramming report of last year. The corps has made the use of this contract provision the rule rather than the exception.

The corps cannot reliably account for the contracts currently in place. As a result, the House report directs the corps to secure the services of a national accounting firm to audit and account for all existing contracts and contain this clause and the out-year commitments required to meet these obligations.

The problem you have here is that the corps enters into these contracts, they don't control what the funding level is, and then they take money from another project and put it over there. Then they can't fund that one, all because of this provision.

We have tried to get the committee of authorization to handle this matter. They haven't. So what we have to do, and I know you will sustain his point of order, but it is not the proper thing to do, then we are going to have to go and put it back in the bill, do it for another year, because we can't get the authorizers to get into the reprogramming, which is affecting the corps and causes increased costs to the corps.

So while I disagree with the gentleman, I understand the technicalities of this. But sometimes we are able to work these things out with committees so for the good of the country we move forward. Apparently, they want to continue this. I have no other way of dealing with this than to argue about it. And then I will have to stick it back in until we get some responsible response from the corps on this matter and save money, I might add.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to enter into a colloquy with Mrs. Biggert.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I share the concerns of my colleague from Illinois, especially since I am from Ohio and we have the Great Lakes. That is why I commit to revisiting in conference the issue of funding for the demonstration barrier in fiscal year 2007.

If Congress were to appropriate the necessary funds, I believe the corps has the authority to operate and maintain the demonstration barrier. Continued operation of this demonstration barrier may very well be necessary if some outstanding authorization issues are not resolved and the corps is unable to complete construction of the permanent barrier next year.

Should those authorization issues be addressed before the conference on this bill is complete, I am open to providing the corps with the additional resources it needs to complete construction and testing of the permanent barrier.

Mr Chairman, I agree that we need permanent, redundant protection against the spread of the aquatic invasive species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. I commit to the gentlewoman from Illinois and the rest of our Great Lake colleagues, including my ranking member from Indiana, and we will both, I believe, work in conference to address the issue of protecting the Great Lakes from invasive species like the Asian carp.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield any remaining time I have to my ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

I understand the gentleman's concern and realize the importance of the Corps of Engineers' recreation sites to local communities. In a time of static budgets and aging infrastructure, we must work together to make our limited funding go further.

I commit to working with the gentleman from Virginia to review existing corps policies and funding to address this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me talk about hypocrisy. Let me talk about extraneous matter out here. I mean, this is outrageous.

First of all, if we want to save money, you do not go back and do these itty-bitty State grants. My State gets a million dollars out of this, $1.6 million. Big deal.

Under your deal, it is going to get $250,000 or less the way you have drafted this amendment. It is absolutely ridiculous to send money up here. We take administration off the top, and then we send it back to the States, and they start it all over again and take a bunch of salaries.

The group that is out here now advocating this thing on behalf of all of the States is funded by this program. This is just another pork- barrel program for Governors of States. We ought to get rid of it. The State grant does absolutely nothing. This amendment will make it even less effective. And what it does to the Department of Energy is outrageous.

Under this, this mandates reduction of 100 employees. Those employees are responsible for the financial integrity of the Department. The next thing they will be saying is, we are not doing it right, and that is because we have cut 100 people out of it. These employees are responsible for the Department's cyber security. Then we hear it is all gone.

Programs like Minority Economic Impact, General Counsel and the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity would be severely impacted.

This amendment is outrageous. You want to get rid of pork-barrel stuff around here, these kinds of programs are a waste of money.

There are a couple of others in this bill that I would take out totally, too,

but this one is particularly egregious because it doesn't do the job.

Vote ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to rise to strike the required number of words, I guess, because I am going to accept her amendment.

I think this is a very responsible amendment. I happen to agree on geothermal, and I want to thank the Member for working with us to find the appropriate funding source on this, and I look forward to holding this as we move forward into conference.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Andrews-Leach amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman's amendment proposes to increase funding for nuclear nonproliferation activities that were already significantly increased in this bill.

The Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development program budget was increased by $39 million, an increase of 15 percent over the request. This program develops better technologies for satellite detection of nuclear activities.

The MPC&A program was increased by $170 million, an increase of 41 percent over the request. This program secures nuclear weapons and nuclear material in Russia and installs radiation detection monitors at border crossings around the former Soviet Union and at foreign seaports.

The MegaPorts program was increased by $65 million, an increase of 162 percent over the request. The committee recognized the need to protect the country's seaports against nuclear smuggling and increased the funding to scan cargo containers.

The Global Threat Reduction Initiative, or GTRI, which the gentleman's amendment would increase funding for, was already increased by the committee for a total of $13 million, or 12 percent over the budget request. The increase was targeted to accelerate recovery of domestic and radiological sealed sources, Russian-origin nuclear material, and U.S.-origin orphaned nuclear materials still overseas.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment. We have already added $222 million to this account. I do not think we need to add any more money into this account at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I understand the gentleman's concern. Let me tell you this. If funds become available along the way, we will take a look at it. I am interested in the program, but I just think we have done an awful lot, probably more than this committee has done in years. Mr. Visclosky has been around longer than I, and Mr. Obey has always been interested in nonproliferation, Mr. Edwards has been interested in nonproliferation, and we have tried to meet those needs by the amounts of moneys we have put in here.

I am sorry this does not meet the gentlemen's needs at this point, but if funds become available along the way and we can find them, we will do that.

But at this point I would have to oppose the gentlemen's amendment but tell them along the way we will try to take a look at it as best we can.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment from the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. As you know, our bill does not use the Nuclear Waste Fund for any activities under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Your amendment is entirely consistent with the views of our committee and its uses of the waste fund, and I encourage Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We talked about it, and we are on very different sides of this issue.

One of the reasons I am upset about some other things out here is I don't want to build seven or eight Yucca Mountains, and we differ on that, and I don't want to put perfectly good rods into Yucca Mountain. I want to go through GNEP and some other things. And maybe someday, if we were really lucky, we wouldn't have to put anything there. But I assume that we will probably have to do some things, certainly with the Naval reactor stuff.

But I think education is one of the most important things we can do. I think one of the things we ought to work on is maybe we need to look at this Web site and have some other types of things and some more balance to it. I happen to think that the best cure for fear is knowledge, and I don't happen to agree with some of the things that you are causing fear about what is going on at Yucca Mountain, and we may disagree about that.

But if we could have a more balanced approach, I still think Yucca Mountain Johnny may have a place in teaching kids. We may differ on where that place is. But I think, in the long run, education, good education is a way to go. So I would encourage the gentlelady to try to work with us and maybe with the Department to get a better and less cutesy sort of thing going and educating people, especially young people, about Yucca Mountain and the responsible use of green fuel in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers at this time and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership receiving an additional $40 million in this budget over what it received last year. It received $80 million worth of taxpayers' dollars last year, and here we are seeing a 50 percent increase in the taxpayers' contribution to something that should be paid for by the private sector.

This is now one of the wealthiest, most successful, most profitable industries in the United States, the domestic nuclear energy industry. If there is any industry, apart from the oil and gas industry, that has no business being out here on the floor asking for handouts from the taxpayer at this time, then you have to put the nuclear industry at the top of the list.

And what is the essence of this Global Nuclear Energy Partnership? Well, sad to say, it is that we will cut deals with countries like Bulgaria, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Korea, on and on, where our private sector companies will be building nuclear power plants in those countries and returning the nuclear waste to the United States for reprocessing in our country. So on the one hand, the Congress is saying, well, we don't want any more immigrants from any of these countries, but send us your nuclear waste if an American company has been able to build nuclear power plants there and make a profit from it.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it should not be the business of the House, of the people who represent hardworking taxpayers, to be handing over all this money to very wealthy industries. They are doing quite well, thank you. This is, once again, an example of an industry now 50 years old; this industry is like someone who is 50 years old still living at home with mom and dad and expecting mom and dad to continue to subsidize them; to give them a hand out.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The problem with this program is that the Department of Energy is only guessing about how much it is ultimately going to cost. Their range is from $3 billion to $6 billion just for a demonstration project, because it doesn't know the answers to the ultimate questions about cost, about feasibility, about the nuclear proliferation consequences. It doesn't know the answers to any of these questions.

But if, again, the nuclear industry wants to get back out on the road and start selling nuclear power plants around the globe, they should do it. Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so fast listening to this debate that he would qualify for a subsidy under this bill as a new electrical generating source. That is how bad this is.

This is a total violation of free market principles. There are no answers at all that you are providing, except that you want to stick your hand into the pockets of the American taxpayers, and it is just wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

You know, the problem with this whole debate is that, within the same bill, there is funding for Yucca Mountain in order to store all of the spent fuel that the nuclear industry has created here domestically. Yet they are coming in here saying, well, we need another solution to the same problem. We also need the taxpayers to subsidize ultimately $3 billion, $6 billion, which is just a demonstration project, and ultimately, $20 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion or $50 billion for reprocessing technology; two paid-for-by-the-taxpayer solutions to the same problem, even though Yucca Mountain is supposed to solve the problem.

Why is that? Because this program does what President Bush wants to do, which is to offer cradle-to-grave services for countries around the world. American companies will build nuclear power plants around the world, and then they will ship the nuclear waste to the United States. And by the way, this waste, when it is reprocessed, is the worst of all materials because it can be used for nuclear weapons but it is not too dangerous for terrorists to handle as a dirty bomb at the same time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this is a crazy budget. It really is. It authorizes $50 million to help the oil companies to drill in deep water even though they reported $113 billion in profits. It allows for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That is where they are going to be heading tomorrow on the House floor.

And this shows you the hypocrisy coefficient on energy policy. Last year, they trumpeted on the House floor and the President with a flourish signed the bill that put in $100 million for State energy plans for conservation at the State level, $100 million.

Then, in January, the President sends up his budget, $49.5 million.

And today, out on the House floor, the true agenda of the Republican Party once again reveals itself: zero. Zero for conservation. Nothing. Meaning that the $100 million last August that the President signed, the $49.5 million that he asked this year, all dismissed while we are going to tip the taxpayer upside down and subsidize the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industries.

But the American taxpayer knows we have to learn to work smarter, not harder; how to conserve, how to use technologies that will reduce our consumption. We only have 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world. We import 70 percent of the oil we consume. That is why we need the DeLauro amendment in order to make sure that we put conservation number one, to back out this imported oil from around the world.

Vote ``aye'' on the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, believe it or not, in this budget there is $50 million to help the oil industry figure out how to do ultra-deep drilling for oil.

Now, the Republicans here in Congress do this despite the fact that President Bush says this on the program, ``I will tell you, with $55-a- barrel oil, we do not need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.''

It is now $70 a barrel. The President has asked us to take out the money. It is ultimately a $500 million 10-year project. The only ultra- deep drilling that is going on here is in the pockets of American taxpayers by oil companies which have reported $110 billion worth of profit in the last year.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read to the Members who are paying attention what President Bush has said to us this year, just a couple of months ago. Here is what he says. He says, ``In the 2007 budget, we recommend repealing provisions of the Energy Policy Act for a new mandatory $50 million per year oil and gas R&D program funded with Federal revenues from oil and gas leases which would be similar to the discretionary programs proposed for termination. Industry has the incentives and the resources to do such research and development on its own.''

That is from President Bush and Dick Cheney to us on the floor.

We do not need this $500 million program. Mom and pop companies do not go out into deep water. The companies that are going out there are ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Conoco, Marathon. We do not have to subsidize these oil companies. They are already tipping the American consumer upside down and shaking money out of their pockets at the pump every single day.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, you know, I am like a referee at an intramural Republican fight here. And so I am just trying to ref it so that you can understand what is going on.

The President and the Vice President have asked for this huge subsidy to huge oil companies to be taken out. He is kind of being a free marketeer here. Well, the Republican leadership here is saying, no, we want to give another half a billion dollars to companies that are now charging $3 a gallon for gasoline, made $114 billion last year and, in the President's own words, do not need this subsidy.

So it is free marketeers versus subsidizers, but it is an intramural slaughter inside the Republican Party. And which of the companies are going to be the beneficiaries in this partnership to secure energy for America? The names are Chevron, Halliburton, BP, Marathon Oil, Kerr- McGee and others.

And this is Dick Cheney and George Bush saying take the money out. But yet they continue to commit to these subsidies from the taxpayer even as the companies report huge profits.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am so sorry that President Bush cannot be here on the House floor, but under separation of power, he just cannot be here.

I would just like to reference for the Republicans on this side what the President has said on this issue. ``I will tell you, with $55-a- barrel oil, we do not need incentives for oil and gas companies to explore.''

That is President Bush talking to the Republicans in Congress.

You do not have to tell me that. I already believed that. But he is on my side of the debate now.

So the point that we are making is quite clear that, yes, the money comes from the oil companies, but the money comes from oil companies because they have to pay the public for the leases on public land. So the public gets the money.

But then what this bill does is then it takes the money back out of the taxpayers' pockets and it hands it back over to the oil companies who have already been in the other pocket of the consumer, tipping them upside down and taking it out of $3 a gallon.

So this is basically the bonus for one oil executive for a couple of years. I mean, that is where they can get the money from if this is such a valuable project.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this amendment is nothing more nor less than an attempt to be fair to the American taxpayer. They are howling at the pumps. They feel like they are getting stuck up at the gas stations. They are paying too much. They are being ripped off.

And this just adds insult to energy by having the oil companies then come to Congress and saying, now you do the research for us. You pay us to go out and drill for more oil. We will then charge you $3.50, $4 a gallon for it. It just makes no sense.

President Bush and Dick Cheney want this amendment to pass. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to let my colleagues know what a privilege it is to work with Mr. Hobson on the critical issues included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. Mr. Hobson is a superb chairman, and I deeply appreciate his vision and even-handed approach to the work of our subcommittee. I also deeply appreciate the splendid work done by each member of the subcommittee. We have an exceptional membership.

I also would want to acknowledge the fine staff that supports both the majority and the minority: Kevin Cook, Taunja Berquam, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, Tracey LaTurner, Dixon Butler, Kenny Kraft, Tony Digiovanni, Debbie Willis and Peder Maarbjerg of my staff. These are all exceptional individuals, and I would point out to the general membership that we will lose Peder Maarbjerg who is my associate staff. He has done not only fine work for myself but for the last several years made an exceptional contribution to the committee and to this country with his very good work.

The bill itself does a good job of allocating scarce resources for sustaining the water infrastructure of our country, maintenance of our strategic deterrent, protecting our Nation from nuclear terrorism, continuing U.S. research leadership, particularly in the physical sciences, and developing energy technology to help us reverse a growing dependence on imported oil.

I will be joining my chairman in support of the bill.

Last year should have served as a major eye-opener as regards the protection of our communities and fellow citizens from the ravages of flooding. Hurricane Katrina may come to rank with the 1927 Mississippi flood as a seminal event in the corps' long history. The corps' responsibilities are multiple, and we should remember that.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a tool in our hands, and we must make good use of it and keep it sharp. Last year, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act began a major program of reforming the financial practices of the corps. This year, we try to continue that process; and I hope that no one will hamper that effort by striking section 102 of the bill.

As usual, there are unintended consequences of such a major reform; and this has been a particular concern of those Members whose projects could not use appropriated funds in past years but are now ready to go and look for restoration of these funds. The bill makes a start at solving this problem by allocating $55 million specifically to fund repayment of donor projects.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would like to follow up on the chairman's remarks.

Plutonium, highly enriched uranium and some highly radioactive products of nuclear fission in the hands of terrorists pose the greatest threat to the United States and its people. Accordingly, the recommendation before the committee increases funding for those elements of defense nuclear nonproliferation at DOE that truly address this issue. This bill correctly shifts money that should not be spent on MOX plants to other areas where the funds can be used now to enhance U.S. security.

The Russians will not proceed with their MOX plant unless it is fully funded by other countries in the G-8 at a cost of $2.5 billion. Pledges to date have not passed $800 million. The Russians have stressed to the chairman, as he has pointed out, and myself that they are still fully committed to destroying 34 metric tons of their surplus plutonium. To do so, they are interested in pursuing less expensive approaches in partnership with us and funding 50 percent of the cost themselves.

When it comes to energy policy, the committee's allocation forces our bill to be hundreds of millions of dollars below needed levels. While I applaud the significant increases for biofuels and solar, even in these areas, the budget forces choices between pursuing rapid commercialization of current technology and demonstrating new ones. With the support of Chairman Hobson, conservation technology investments were increased in the full committee resulting in full funding for solid-state lighting, one of the most promising technologies for saving energy; and for the request of the Governor's Ethanol Coalition for development of E-85 infrastructure.

However, I remain concerned that the Clean Coal Power Initiative will have to wait one or more additional years before issuing its next solicitation for research proposals. The Department of Energy has argued that it is too late to include new technologies in the FutureGen demonstration plant, but given the abundance of domestic coal as an energy source, I believe we will be seeking new technologies to improve our use of coal for many years to come.

Our country needs a robust mix of energy sources so that we can adapt rapidly to changes in the world's markets. We as a Nation can innovate our way out of the current energy crisis, but I fear that we are letting a false sense of economy prevent this from happening at the pace required.

Last year, in an effort to move the country forward in developing nuclear power as a domestic source of energy that does not emit greenhouse gases, the Congress provided funds to pursue a competitive process for choosing sites for the integrated reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including interim storage. We as a subcommittee also worked to accelerate the opening of the Yucca Mountain permanent high- level radioactive waste repository, but without success. The administration has responded with a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, and I would like to emphasize the concerns about GNEP expressed in our committee's report.

I do not know whether GNEP will truly help the future of nuclear power. I do know that any benefits from GNEP for the American people are 15 years or more in the future, but the benefits to the DOE labs, whose directors came to Washington for a recent Senate event, might be very immediate.

I appreciate the chairman's supporting a restrained funding level for this program that will provide funds for work to refine the ideas included in the GNEP concept. I believe that the level in this bill is the correct level and will oppose any efforts to make further cuts in this area. Our subcommittee will work with the authorizing committees to ensure that the costs and plans for dealing with the waste that GNEP will generate are understood and are accounted for.

Members should note that the bill requires DOE to submit its GNEP plans to peer review by the National Academy of Science and the National Academy of Engineering.

One cannot discuss the issues of spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste without reiterating that Yucca Mountain is essential as a permanent high-level radioactive waste repository. We must continue to support its opening and not give up, even though its opening has been delayed until at least 2017. Through GNEP, we may redefine the waste stream in the future. The character of much of the waste may change, and change so as to lessen the long-term radioactive activity of the waste. But we have today waste of known character awaiting permanent disposal. Of course, I speak of the waste generated by the creation and maintenance of our nuclear deterrent, a deterrent from which we have all benefited.

Last year's cuts to the science account at DOE were estimated to reduce support for 2,200 researchers. This year's funding will increase support for 2,600 researchers. This type of oscillation, however, does not attract bright minds to the research areas DOE sponsors, and a new increase of only 400 researchers over 2 years is hardly a major step forward. But it is a step forward, and I would stress to my colleagues and to the administration that further major increases will be required to support the physical sciences at the level befitting our Nation and its desire for continued economic growth and world leadership.

The bill provides for more staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to enable it to handle an anticipated increase in license applications for new nuclear plants. I also foresee additional regulatory responsibilities for the NRC.

For example, I see the need for NRC to become involved in issues of nuclear safety at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. At many sites, the Department of Energy self-regulates on nuclear safety, and I consider this a foolish approach, even when the Department has the best of intentions. We do not let the private sector self-regulate in matters of nuclear safety, and we should end this practice at DOE as soon as is practical.

So I think you can see how many critical areas for our Nation are included within the scope of the energy and water bill. Again, despite the funding limitations imposed upon the subcommittee, I take comfort from the many excellent decisions embodied in it and from the good that will be accomplished by the people's money we provide for these many programs.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) for purposes of a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 832 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 832 is an open rule providing 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 5427, The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2007. Under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph.

House Resolution 832 waives points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill except as specified in the resolution. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The House Rules Committee reported by voice vote an open rule for consideration of H.R. 5427, The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2007. The underlying bill provides over $30 billion to the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation and several independent agencies.

The underlying bill provides nearly $5 billion to support vigorous civil works programs that focus limited resources on completing high- priority projects. The Department of Energy constitutes the bulk of the bill with funding of over $24.3 billion. Included in the Department of Energy's budget is over $4 billion for the American Competitiveness Initiative to strengthen basic research by increasing funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science.

The bill also supports the Advanced Energy Initiative by increasing money for a variety of clean energy technologies including biomass, hydrogen, solar, wind, and clean coal.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also includes funding important many projects in my central Washington district. After getting the Bureau of Reclamation engaged in funding solutions for the depletion of the Odessa Subaquifer 2 years ago, I am pleased that this bill continues the effort to ensure the Federal Government keeps its commitment to the Columbia Basin farmers at risk of losing their water supply.

For the fifth straight year, I am pleased that the funds are provided to keep the study of additional water storage in the Yakima River Basin moving forward towards completion. 2007 is a critical year for this study and this gives the Bureau the funds needed to keep it on schedule to get the study done by 2008.

Having authored the law that created the study, I am dedicated to ensuring it stays on course. No storage has been built in this Yakima River Basin since

the mid-1930s. And after several serious droughts in the last 5 years, it is vital that this study provide answers on more storage.

Over $24 million is provided for 2007 to ensure 1,000 Federal lab scientists and workers continue their important work at the Pacific Northwest National Lab. The funds are needed to transition the lab personnel into new lab buildings. Some lab buildings dating back to the mid-1940s are slated for demolition and cleanup due to radioactive contamination of the structures, soil and ground water. With coordination and planning, this transition can possibly be accomplished in a manner that could save the taxpayers over $100 million.

Within the Department of Energy, the Office of Environmental Management is responsible for the cleanup at the Nation's nuclear sites. The largest and most contaminated of these sites is Hanford in my district. This bill provides needed Hanford cleanup funds for the River Corridor Closure project, the K Basins and other projects managed by the Richland Operations Office. An increase of $20 million is provided for ground water contamination cleanup and technology development.

At Hanford's Office of River Protection, $20 million is restored to the tank farm budget for the bulk vit demonstration project. This funding is necessary for DOE to confirm alternative treatments for millions of gallons of hazardous and radioactive tank waste.

Mr. Speaker, the largest component of Hanford's budget is the waste treatment plant. This project is critical to the Federal Government's obligation to uphold its legal cleanup commitments to the State of Washington. For well over a year this project has been undergoing extensive review by the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, and GAO.

In addition, an independent group of the Nation's best and brightest nuclear and construction experts have been looking into the project's technical issues and estimates of the projects costs and schedule. These reviews are providing both recommendations and validations that will assist the Department of Energy in setting a path forward for this project.

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, and expectation that DOE will provide a detailed plan for the waste treatment plant before Congress writes a final conference report on the energy and water appropriations act for this year. A final path forward from DOE is critical for making decisions on this project for next year and for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress enough the importance of Congress getting this information from DOE in a timely manner.

I also want to thank the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member for the time and attention they have dedicated to the waste treatment facility, specifically into preparing a bill that enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the subcommittee and full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 832 is an open rule that gives all Members a chance to express their views on how our Nation should be prioritizing its spending. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I, first of all, want to thank the ranking member for his kind words, and I also want to thank him and the chairman of the subcommittee a little broader because they have taken a great deal of interest in the Hanford project. Both of them have been out there at least once in the past several years, and other Members of the subcommittee have visited that, and I want to bring that to the House's attention because the one common denominator I hear when people go out and visit the Hanford site is, I had no idea it was that huge and that complex. I think that understanding helps us move forward.

But I do want to reiterate and I do hope the Department of Energy does come forward with their path before we finally get the final conference report. I think that it is important.

Having said that, on the Rules Committee, we did not make the gentleman's amendment in order because it

calls for raising taxes, and that is a province of the Ways and Means Committee, and obviously, they do want to keep that jurisdiction. We did not provide the waiver, and therefore, that amendment was not made in order.

I also mention, too, the amendment was offered during the markup in the full Appropriations Committee, and it was defeated by the Appropriations Committee.

So I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, but I just wanted to make those observations.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from California I have no more requests for time, so I will reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the resolution.

This is a fair rule. It is an open rule and allows Members to come down to the floor and prioritize and reprioritize the spending under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.