Nuclear Waste Storage Prohibition Act

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to use my time and recognize the gentleman from South Carolina for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman and Mr. Lipinski's request for funding for this very worthwhile program, and certainly look forward to working with him as well as the gentleman from Illinois as we go to conference.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman, Mr. Space, to express my appreciation for the concern he has for his constituency, as well as the gentlelady from West Virginia, and my colleague on the committee, Mr. Aderholt, who also raised an amendment in the full committee.

Again, I appreciate their work and their concern for the people in economic development of not only their individual constituencies, but their region, and certainly would pledge to continue to work with them to address their concerns.

Having said that, I would ask my colleague from Ohio to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce DOE's Office of Administration by over $27 million. The bill provides $304 million, a decreased amount under the President's request.

The Departmental Administration account funds the guts of the Department; the chief financial officer, human resources, the general counsel, the chief information officer, all are integral to the functioning of the $25 billion operation of the Department of Energy.

What I am particularly concerned about relative to the gentlewoman's amendment is that the bill has initiatives that would not be funded as a result of the reductions.

There are funds provided in this bill for additional legal counsel to expedite energy efficiency standards for appliances. There has been a significant accumulation of backlog for this work. We can expedite this work and save energy in this country.

The bill also funds a review by the National Academy of Public Administration for the contracting in human resources process. Mentioned yesterday during debate, the Department of Energy has been on a high-risk list with the GAO for 17 years. The purpose of the subcommittee of having the National Academy of Public Administration come in is to get DOE off so that they stop wasting and mismanaging money. And I would hate to see that function not occur because of the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge rejection of it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would yield back my time and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment. I understand his concern, as I and Mr. Hobson have grave concerns about the department's record on contracting and project management as well.

This bill requires the department to develop an action plan due to Congress that will get DOE off the GAO high-risk list for their contract management performance as soon as possible, as I indicated in the previous debate, where they have been since 1990; follow its own guidelines in Management Order 413.3 for project management; and contract with the National Academy of Public Administration for a review of the departmental contracting processes, which have been a choke point of getting work done.

Again, I would be pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment and the record that is established for the department to follow through on GAO's recommendation to examine the root causes of poor contract management.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and would hope that at the end of this debate he consider the withdrawal of his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Udall and also appreciate the fact that he has made a significant contribution to the full Appropriations Committee and also understand the circumstances that he is presented with.

Contrary to what I think the belief of some Members are, we have made cuts in this bill, but they were thoughtful cuts, given a number of considerations. I would point out that the means by which the gentleman is trying to secure additional weapons money would cut the Administrator's office and potentially terminate most of the Nation's nonproliferation programs.

The nuclear nonproliferation programs are one of the few activities at the Department of Energy that are staffed, managed and run by Federal employees. In the end, Federal employees tend to be generally younger professionals with fewer years of public service and would bear the brunt of any Federal reduction in force.

Secondly, I wish that our national labs, which are treasures and do great work, would also be as adamant and as concerned about their security as they are about their budget line. I would ask to submit additional materials in the Record, but would point out we had serious security breaches at Los Alamos in December of 1999, June of 2000, November of 2003, May of 2004, July of 2004, in 2005, in 2006. There was an incident in January of 2007 that made Time Magazine. This has got to stop.

But the breach that causes me and should cause every Member here the most heartburn is what happened to a gentleman by the name of Shawn Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter worked at Los Alamos, Mr. Carpenter was concerned about security at Los Alamos, and Mr. Carpenter went to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to express his concern. He did not go to a local newspaper. He went to the FBI, and he was terminated. There was a trial relative to that wrongful termination. And I would point out that the gentleman who fired Mr. Carpenter, and he subsequently won a judgment of $4.6 million for wrongful termination, got a bonus.

He got a bonus after he fired Mr. Carpenter, and Mr. Carpenter went to the FBI to protect the secrets of this Nation as far as our nuclear security.

The third concern I have is some of these moneys would find their way back into the proposal made by the administration that we have eliminated in this bill for a new nuclear weapon. As we have extensively pointed out in the committee report language, since the termination of the Cold War, since regional conflicts such as Kosovo, since 9/11, we have not developed a new nuclear strategy. This is not a time to build a new nuclear weapon.

We have significant cost overruns and time overruns on three buildings we were told were needed for stockpile stewardship. None of them are done. All of them are over budget. Now let's take a turn in the road. I am adamantly opposed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee of Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, as a Notre Dame grad, I would like to interject myself into this colloquy. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his interest in this area.

The gentleman is correct. The subcommittee's objection was to praise the nuclear physics communities adaptiveness in adjusting its facilities plan to our current budgetary realities. It was not meant in any way to define or alter the scope of the proposed facility or limit Michigan State's ability to compete. The subcommittee remains steadfastly committed to ensuring that DOE user facilities are subject to full and open competition and will monitor the process very closely to make sure that all potential competitors are treated fairly by DOE. Again, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and bringing this matter up.

Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, there is a role and a need for the ARC to assist distressed counties in Appalachia with local economic development and to provide infrastructure requirements.

Of the original 223 distressed counties, 74 remain in that category; and clearly the mission of the ARC has not yet been fully realized. The fact is the committee did reduce the administration's request for this account by $30 million and has targeted all of the funds in this bill for those distressed counties. So I would be in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, despite the eloquence and persuasiveness of my ranking member and good friend, Mr. Hobson, I remain opposed and would ask the membership to vote against the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I would simply indicate that I would be happy to accept the gentlewoman's amendment and if my colleague the ranking member would have an observation, I would invite him to.

I appreciate the recognition. I understand the gentlelady's concern and, with the observation that she is going to withdraw her amendment, have a number of points to make but will simply enter those into the Record.

Proceeding with construction of nuclear spent fuel recycling facilities at this time is premature.

Geologic capacity exists at Yucca Mountain to accommodate much more high level waste than currently permitted by legislation

Spent fuel recycling is not economically viable given affordable fresh supplies of uranium fuel

On-site storage of nuclear spent fuel is safe for 50 to 100 years, so there is no rush, but there could be cost savings from removing spent fuel from the nine decommissioned nuclear reactor sites.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong objection to the gentlelady's amendment and would point out a couple of things. One, as we stated in opening debate, we very carefully looked at all the accounts in this bill and, among other things, made cuts in over 57 programs to make sure that funds were available for positive programs that make a difference in people's lives. One of those areas is in the area of energy and specifically the high cost of gasoline for consumers across the country.

One of the things that we did do is to add money in this legislation, $130 million above the President's request, to provide $503 million for new vehicle technologies and for biofuels. Another area as far as the energy crisis was the change in the overall request relative to climate change and, again, funds were made available for such things as research, development and demonstration of new energy technologies in solar, geothermal, wind, hydropower, fossil and nuclear energy as well as research, development and demonstration of conservation technologies for buildings and industries as well as the deployment of energy conservation through weatherization in Federal buildings.

There are a lot of very positive things that we have done in this legislation to advance a positive energy agenda. The gentlewoman's amendment would be hurtful to those efforts and I am opposed to her amendment.

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

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

I appreciate the gentleman yielding very much and certainly appreciate his passion and concern about the health and safety of his constituents and this important issue to him.

The problem we have incurred on the committee, and this is not the only regulatory issue regarding FERC that has been brought to our attention, is we are not a regulatory body and obviously have jurisdictional issues that are set aside over and above the issues of substance relative to the gentleman's amendment.

But we do appreciate his concern. Certainly we would be happy to stay in touch with him, without making a commitment, that this issue will be resolved through the appropriations process. We do believe that the higher this issue could be raised as far as the public and the regulatory commission, the better off all the citizens of his community are going to be.

Again, I thank the gentleman for raising the issue and appreciate the fact that he apparently will be withdrawing his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but let me first begin my discussion by expressing my sincere respect for the gentleman who has offered the amendment, Mr. Bishop, as well as the two speakers who have followed him in support of it, particularly my colleague on the Appropriations Committee, the chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro.

I would point out to the body that this is the second FERC issue that has been brought up on a regulatory matter before the subcommittee on the floor. We have had other inquiries from Members that have not reached this level that are very similar in substance in other areas of the country. I would not pretend to deny that there is a problem, but I am not competent to sort through that fact as I am not a regulator myself, to make a determination, and do not believe that this is a venue to make those particular determinations.

The amendment before us undoes the Natural Gas Act for the orderly review and decision making process for energy infrastructure and limits energy development efforts. FERC's consideration of applications to site energy facilities does not imply that the applications will be granted, or if granted, will not require appropriate environmental protection measures. Moreover, all FERC authorizations are subject to judicial review.

I do believe that FERC's application process ought to be able to run its course. And again, I regret that I have to stand in objection to the amendment but trust that my colleagues understand the impetus for that.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I reserve my time at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, we may only have one speaker on our side, so I would still reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

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

Again, I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and apologize to the gentleman for having his State of origin incorrect, especially because he is from the great State of Ohio. But I would emphasize that this is the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for the coming year, and we are in an energy crisis and it transcends the cost of the price of gasoline at the pump. It is a true economic situation and crisis that we face. It is a national security issue that we face. My good friend, the senior Senator from the State of Indiana, Senator Lugar, has characterized the energy crisis we face as the albatross around our national security neck. It is also an environmental issue as far as a potential catastrophic climate change that will occur if we do not deal with the issue of CO2.

This bill makes an investment in solving that crisis we face. It will not solve all the problems tomorrow morning, but it will put us on firm footing to do so in the future.

Let's talk about vehicle technology. The bill recommends $93 million for hybrid electric systems, an increase of $13 million over the President's request. Of the increase, $10 million is for energy storage research and development for advanced batteries for electric, hybrid electric, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and $3 million is for independent test and evaluation of all vehicles developed in the upcoming demonstration phase.

This bill also includes $49 million for advanced combustion engine research and development, an increase of $15 million over the President's request to restore funding for heavy truck engine research that was eliminated in the administration's request.

It does include $48 million, $15 million over the budget, for materials technology research, to accelerate the development of cost- effective materials and manufacturing processes that contribute to fuel-efficient passenger and commercial vehicles.

It includes $10 million more than the administration's request for nonpetroleum-based fuels and lubricants evaluation to expand and accelerate research and development for the optimum ethanol fuel.

And we also have an increase for technology integration of $6 million in this bill for vehicle technologies and deployment, formerly the Clean Cities Program. We have moneys in here to advance geothermal technology, to demonstrate cost-share industry that will allow accelerated research into new geothermal technologies.

We have moneys in here for hydropower; for research, development, and demonstration of ocean, tidal, and in-stream hydropower energy systems. We have made an investment in this bill for electricity supply and delivery research, for applied research on semi-conductor material, device and processing issues, technology acceptance and technology evaluation.

We have investment moneys in this bill for solar energy research, and the gentleman from the State of Massachusetts talked about that briefly, to develop cost-neutral designs and technologies to better integrate solar heating and lighting into building designs. We have made an investment in this bill for facilities to research, test, and demonstrate the new renewable technologies.

It would be a mistake to change these funding levels and turn the clock back as far as trying to make progress to solve the energy problems we face in this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I stress my opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to indicate that I am happy to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, I truly do, the gentleman's concerns regarding the breaching of hydropower dams. Certainly, this country and the government should proceed very carefully before any such decision is made.

I would point out, however, Mr. Chairman, that there are no funds in this bill for that purpose. Indeed, I would remind my colleagues that authorization and direct appropriations for this purpose would also be needed. So I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. But I would also point out in a positive fashion that there is $95 million in this bill for the rehabilitation of existing hydroelectric facilities on our waterways.

I certainly do think they make a significant, and can make even a greater, contribution to the energy demands of this country. But again, Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Mr. Chairman, I would certainly be happy to cooperate with my colleague and ranking member, Mr. Hobson, in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would indicate to the gentleman that I am happy to accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I have one remaining speaker, and it is my understanding it is my prerogative to close.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. And while they say miracles never cease, this is living proof. Despite my frustrations with the leadership of the Department of Energy, and they are great, I am rising to oppose the gentlewoman's motion to cut the DOE's Departmental Administration and make a case for why they need the level requested by the President.

For too long, DOE has been stuck in a quagmire of mismanagement, operating devoid of leadership and vision. But cutting funds that are critical to the successful management of our Nation's energy programs, especially at such a critical time in terms of our energy security, I think is a foolish time to do that. A cut of close to $30 million to this account will cost far more in terms of our Nation's energy needs than the good message it might send.

So don't be misled by the gentlewoman's argument that cutting $28 million in discretionary funds in this account will reduce the deficit. It might. But I think it will do the opposite. It will undermine DOE's efforts to oversee climate change research, improve the use of renewable energy, and provide national scientific leadership.

But DOE, I hope, is listening today and gets the message. They need to get their act together, and I agree with the fact that they don't have their act together. But I don't think this is the way to get their attention at this moment. But if I thought it was, I would agree with the gentlewoman, because I believe the intent here is more than just to cut the deficit. It is to wake them up to get some reasonable management in that quagmire that is over there and just answers to the other body's needs all the time for additional spending. So it is unfortunate, but I do oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I wish to associate myself with the chairman's comments. I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition also to the gentleman's amendment. This is not personal between me and the gentleman, and I hope it wouldn't be when I get over too, because I am really opposed to this amendment, and I am really in support of the chairman on this, because this is something we have worked on for a long period of time.

I know the administration and some Members, those from New Mexico, are not pleased with the cuts to the weapons program. I have heard from the other body, and they may claim these funding reductions somehow threaten our national security.

I also recognize it is politically convenient to move money from a so-called bureaucracy in Washington to what is portrayed as a field- level purpose. Sorry, folks, but I don't buy either of these arguments, and I strongly believe this bill puts our nuclear weapons programs in the proper perspective.

I have been a member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for the past 5 years, and I have personally visited every single nuclear weapons lab, plant and site in DOE's complex, and I honestly can't tell you how much our national security is protected, whether we fund the nuclear weapons account at $6.5 billion, $6 billion, or even $5.5 billion. And I certainly can't tell you what benefit we will gain by adding $192 million back to the weapons program and devastating NSA's management office, as the gentleman proposes.

I also sit on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, as does my chairman, and we both are all too aware of the funding shortfalls in the conventional defense area to believe that nuclear weapons are somehow a higher security priority.

So after years of looking at this from virtually every angle, I can tell you definitively that what we need is a national strategy for nuclear weapons and a clearly defined set of military requirements that is derived from that strategy. Then, and only then, will NNSA be able to lay out what a modern weapons complex, capability of producing a specified number of reliable replacement warheads will look like.

In the meantime, we have many nuclear nonproliferation priorities that need to be addressed. This will have real security benefits today, not at some weapons design lab tomorrow.

This bill balances our national security needs by making the prudent recommendations on weapons we have discussed and by putting an additional $398 billion above the President's request towards defense nuclear nonproliferation activities. These funds will play down the risk of nuclear smuggling by improving programs such as the elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production; international nuclear materials production and cooperation; second line of defense and cooperation; MegaPorts; MegaAirports; and global coordination among domestic security agencies, such as DHS and foreign governments.

Furthermore, these additional funds will support the implementation of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank, a priority for security experts ranging from National Security Advisor Steve Hadley to former Senator Sam Nunn to the leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Getting our national security priorities right is what this bill is about, and it is a rational approach I wholeheartedly support. But let's call it what it is. This amendment isn't really about national security. It is all about jobs at these DOE weapons facilities.

In particular, the Los Alamos National Laboratory is in the gentleman's State of New Mexico. This lab has held a preeminent place at the Federal trough for years, and now fears the loss of jobs because of this bill's recommended funding levels. Los Alamos has the largest number of employees of any DOE field site, with employees who receive the highest level of compensation, and a lab that has the highest overhead rate of any DOE operation. All told, Los Alamos receives close to $2 billion a year from our bill, plus additional reimbursement of work from other agencies. And I cannot tell you what we get in return for that investment.

I do know that Los Alamos has chronic management problems, and I can read a long litany of security failures, safety accidents and costs and schedule overruns brought to you by the 9,000 highly paid folks at Los Alamos. Don't let anyone tell you that these problems are a thing of the past. DOE just informed us this week of yet another security screwup at Los Alamos, and this is after a number of others.

Given this track record, do we really believe adding another $192 million will improve security? I would argue our national security might actually be improved by cutting 1,800 jobs from a facility that can't seem to manage sensitive information. We would have a lot less people to watch.

The bottom line is that gutting the office of the NNSA Administrator by reducing its funding by almost half will undermine any chance of the NNSA actually managing the weapons and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Does the gentleman expect us to believe that jobs in New Mexico are more important than the overall national management of these sensitive national security programs?

So I am, you can tell, opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I believe the priorities are misguided. The weapons program has no clear strategy of a way forward. And this bill report addresses the shortcomings with its prudent funding recommendations and bold direction.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this ill-conceived amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) for a colloquy.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to eliminate funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. I have been against the Appalachian Regional Commission since I was on the Budget Committee in 1995. But I do appreciate the chairman's cutting the funding back because we always have a problem dealing with the Senate on this issue.

But let me tell you, for all of the heartburn we have had over congressional earmarks and administration earmarks, I would point out that funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission basically provides earmarks designated by the Governors of 13 Appalachian States. If we are cutting our earmarks, then we should be reducing these as well. The one thing we should not do is delegate our decision-making to the authority of these Governors, no matter how well intended the purposes are.

And I have to tell you, we have been throwing this money into these counties for all these years, and they are still at these levels. It doesn't do any good. It just goes down the tube. We should do programs that really help the quality of life in these regions and help them move out, rather than doing these little projects that keep them in the poverty level. So I support the gentleman's amendment.

I am also willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's withdrawing of the amendment. At the time this proposal came up, I was the chairman of the committee and we worked together on this with the current chairman. GNEP was a proposal that was put out for people to raise their hand if they were interested in the project. It was never intended that the project be a permanent disposition site. So I think your people should understand that it was only an interim site. I would recommend that the record show that it is

only an interim site that is intended if they are successful in receiving a GNEP award.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns, and we will work to try to address them in conference.

I also appreciate her withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I want to associate my comments with the chairman. I have the utmost regard for all the Members who spoke on this, but I do oppose the amendment and join with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to associate myself with the gentleman's comments.

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the amendment, also.

I am also willing to accept the amendment for the minority. I think it's a good amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. But I want to tell you I am very sympathetic to the gentleman's concerns. We should preserve hydropower wherever we can. We should advance hydropower. He is correct in those statements.

However, I think the amendment is too broadly written and could lead to unintended negative consequences because there may be certain structures that because of environmental reasons or economic reasons we need to take some action on.

So what I would like to suggest to everyone is that we oppose the amendment, but we work together to see, because I think the chairman shares the concern for hydropower and that we would try to work to see how we can get some language at some point that might address the problem in a more appropriate way. So I do reluctantly oppose the amendment, but I am certainly within the spirit of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I also am in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, but he shouldn't really yield me all the time that I might consume because I might consume it all. So please inform me when I have used about 4 minutes, and then I might use an additional 1.

Mr. Chairman, each of the people who have already spoken in favor of this piece of legislation, which would take $1.3 billion or $1.8 billion, whichever it is, I don't remember precisely, out of the recommended budget, the budget that has been recommended by the chairman and ranking member with a unanimous vote out of the Appropriations Committee, each of the people who had spoken in favor of this amendment has made the comment that the budget resolution has raised taxes by the largest amount ever in the history of this country. Each of the Members has made that allegation.

Each of the Members knows perfectly well that you cannot raise taxes, you cannot raise taxes by that mechanism; that any raise in taxes has to be passed by the House and the Senate in exactly the same form and then signed by the President of the United States. So it is simply incorrect, and each and every Member knows that it is incorrect that the budget raises taxes, raises the largest tax increase in the history of the country.

The last gentleman who spoke pointed out that the adoption of this amendment, which would reduce this particular bill, recommended by both the chairman and the ranking member, by $1.3 billion, that that would be a $1.3 billion tax reduction. The gentleman who made that comment also knows that no reduction in taxes can occur except by legislation that is passed by both Houses and signed by the President. So, again, it is totally incorrect to make that allegation.

Now, the first speaker, who has offered this amendment, has said that this bill spends too much. Well, I think the measure of whether a bill spends too much is whether we are doing what is necessary for the security of this country and for the well-being of the people of America. And I think what has been done by the chairman and ranking member falls very much in the point of providing for the security of the country and also for the well-being of the American citizens.

I would point out that the chairman and the ranking member and the full

subcommittee that brings forward this legislation has reduced by over $800 million the President's request, actually $900 million over the President's request, in programs that have been terminated or reduced, in all of those that have been terminated and reduced. Now, what they have done, after making those reductions from the President's request and in their responsibility to provide for the budget for the country, they have then added moneys. They have added about $400 million in the provisions for renewable energy, which have to deal with solar energy, biofuel energy, nuclear energy and geothermal, wind, and all the other good renewable energy sources which we need desperately for our national security to remove ourselves from the heavy dependence that we have on foreign oil. So that is a place where if this amendment were adopted and we were to go back to the 2007 numbers, then we would lose that increase, that very important increase of $400 billion.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We would lose that $400 million of very important investments for the security and well-being of this country.

And I would just also like to point out that there are substantial increases, which the ranking member has pointed out, that deal with the deficits, the deficits in investments in our water infrastructure under the Corps of Engineers and also under the Bureau of Reclamation, those places where we have dams that are in need of investment that has not been done over recent years and investments that should be done in our ports in order to make our commerce go better, a whole series of things which the ranking member had laid out very carefully in his initial remarks in relation to this legislation. All of those things which are increases that are in this legislation, part of that $1.3 billion, which would be removed, then those pieces of investments would thereby become unnecessary.

So I think this legislation is right on target for securing this Nation and for securing the well-being of the people of America. And I hope that the gentleman's amendment will be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept for the majority the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I am certainly not going to use my time in this instance. I, for the majority, am willing to accept the gentlewoman and gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me time. I will try to cover my points in those 3 minutes.

I just want to remind the members of the committee, of the Congress, of the body, that this bill came from the subcommittee with full support of the subcommittee members, with the ranking member and the chairman in strong support, with a very good and thoughtful look at what energy and water expenditures ought to be.

There are increases in moneys that are investments in flood control, in dam safety, in putting money into dealing with our ports which need dredging, things of that sort. There are substantial increases, that is true, in renewable energy, which is the one place where we can really get at our dependence upon oil that comes from very unstable parts of this world.

There were some wonderful recommendations that in large part are a balance between nuclear nonproliferation, so important, because that is where our real danger is to the security of this country in the future, our major danger, versus some unnecessary expenditures in nuclear weapons development, nuclear weaponry development. That recommendation is here.

We have had about 12 hours now of debate in this committee with 50 amendments, with offers of amendments to cut and reduce, offers of amendments to increase expenditures, to shift expenditures. There are some that have been adopted. Most of them have been refused. But everybody has had a chance. And the basic body of the bill remains as it was, as it was recommended by the chairman and the ranking member of the committee with the support of the subcommittee and the Appropriations Committee.

Here now we have a 1 percent reduction which attempts at this late date, after all those amendments have been dealt with one by one, increases and decreases, and the issues have been discussed, then to reduce by 1 percent, $300-plus million, which then has an effect on all those earlier decisions that have been made by this committee as a whole.

So I would hope that this amendment would not be adopted. I think that this is a basically irresponsible way of going about budgeting. If you can't deal with the issues and then come to a conclusion on the budget that you have adopted in that process, then one should not do what is being proposed here. I hope that the amendment will be resoundingly defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by complimenting the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), for showing support for hydropower in the base bill.

Hydropower has long been overlooked as a source for clean energy. I am very pleased that this bill, and the report that goes along with it, support hydropower and encourage its use and its utilization.

My amendment builds off of that effort by simply saying that the existing hydropower that we have should not be decommissioned at this point in time.

As everybody in this body knows, we are very concerned about greenhouse gases, both on the Commerce Committee, where I serve, and on the Select Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence.

We are looking at the danger posed to this country by greenhouse gases. Indeed, that is a threat to this economy, to this Nation, and to this world. My amendment simply says that hydropower manages to address that issue by producing both clean power and power which has no hydrocarbons whatsoever.

Hydropower is emission-free, and it is also completely renewable; so therefore this amendment simply says that none of the funds in this legislation shall be used to decommission any existing Federal dam which is currently producing hydroelectric power.

Now, I know of no dam that has currently been proposed to be decommissioned that is a Federal dam and is producing electric power. But it seems to me that this is an action item. This is an opportunity for us to say we are serious about greenhouse gas reduction. We are serious about renewable energy. We are serious about a clean environment. We are serious about not doing more damage by simply saying none of these funds shall be used to decommission or remove from current production any existing hydroelectric power dam that is producing electricity for Americans today.

It truly is clean, and it truly is renewable; and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), the former chairman of the Clean Air Resources Board in California.

Mr. Chairman, I thank both the gentlemen for their comments.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank both of the gentlemen. I would be happy to work with them. I simply want to stress, we understand, and I think everyone here does, that hydropower is more efficient than virtually all other energy. Ninety percent of its available energy is converted into electricity by hydropower. By contrast, the best fossil fuel power converts only 50 percent of its energy.

Hydropower produces zero greenhouse gas emissions. And we have avoided some 160 million tons of carbon emissions by the use of hydropower here in the United States in the last year.

The report says hydropower is reliable, it is efficient, it is domestic, and it is emissions-free. Indeed, as I state in my comments, the report is very supportive of hydropower. I think this amendment is an opportunity to take a concrete step both toward renewable energy and toward clean energy that produces no greenhouse gases.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very enlightening debate. Fortunately, I think the American people are smart enough to understand this debate. They understand that, for example, even though there won't be a tax increase before the election in 2008, that policies that get adopted this year will force tax increases in future years. I think they understand that.

I want to comment on the remarks of the committee Chair who just spoke. I think he made a compelling case for leaving the priorities that are in this bill precisely where they are. I think your committee, with the help of the minority, worked diligently to produce a sound product, a product that attempts to allocate the resources amongst the various priorities.

But there will come a time when this Nation wakes up. There will come a time when we will have to be responsible about spending on this floor.

The speaker before the last speaker criticized Republicans and said, ``You spent too much on your watch,'' and he was dead right.

This is the Hefley amendment. I voted for the Hefley amendment every time, trying to get us to cut 1 percent. Let me explain why. Because in 1994 when I was elected to Congress, and in 1995 and in 1996, we went across America, Republicans and Democrats alike, and we asked the American people if they wanted us to continue spending at that pace or if they were willing to see us reduce that pace of spending to reduce the burden on our children and our grandchildren.

One after another of them rose and said, ``Don't cut my program''; but one after another of them, every single one of them that I heard, at field hearings in Prescott, Arizona, and in Wyoming and Montana, said that if the cuts are even, if the cuts are evenly spread and fair to everyone, then, yes, you are right. We have to rein in spending to a level we can live with. That is what this amendment does. It is responsible. It is good public policy. I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Yes, the Campbell amendment. Number 14.

I thank the Chair, and I also want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member. I have great respect for their work, particularly the ranking member, who is a friend, colleague and actually neighbor of mine. I appreciate his work over the years here in the United States Congress.

This amendment is pretty simple. It takes spending levels in the bill back to the fiscal 2007 year levels; represents a $1.3 billion savings to taxpayers and families across the country.

Mr. Chairman, government spends too much. And I said ``government.'' I didn't say Republicans or Democrats. Both parties need to work on this area when it comes to public policy.

But today the Federal Government spends $23,000 per household. Excessive spending hurts America. Deficits hurt America, and a rising national debt hurts America.

You don't have to take my word for it. Our staff went through and we looked at the Budget Chairman, Mr. Spratt's committee, some notes from their committee hearings on the budget. And I want to just quote from Dr. Edward Gramlich, former Governor of the Federal Reserve Board. He said this: ``Deficits represent negative public saving, which tends to drive down national saving. Lower national savings means a smaller stock of capital for the future, which reduces the productivity and wages of future workers. Budget deficits lead to less economic growth and a lower level of economic activity than would otherwise be the case.''

Excessive spending leads to deficits, leads to lower economic growth. Excessive spending leads to tax increases, all bad for our growing economy, all bad for American families.

And it's particularly, I think, important to recognize why this is so crucial that we get a handle on it as we think about the marketplace we find ourselves in today, the changing international market.

Just a couple of numbers. Four weeks ago the Wall Street Journal reported that China's economic growth rate, annual growth rate, is 10.4 percent. Now, think about this: one billion, 300 million people in China with a growth rate of 10.4 percent. That's what we're competing against.

There was a point in the past where elected officials could maybe enact policies that weren't in our best interest or weren't good for our economic growth. But now, because of the fact that the competition is so stiff, it's important that public policymakers get it right. Keep taxes low, keep spending under control.

In the end, Mr. Chairman, it's not just about deficits and the national debt and GDP. It's about people because, in the end, it's people who pay taxes. It's people who have to deal with this debt and the deficits that we're causing by spending at these levels.

I want to also quote from the same document from Chairman Spratt's committee, from the Comptroller General, Mr. Walker. He said, ``Deficits matter for the world we leave our children and our grandchildren.'' Mr. Walker said this, and I quote, ``Today we are failing in one of our most important stewardship responsibilities, our duty to pass on a country better positioned to deal with the challenges of the future than the one we were given.'' And that's so true.

This amendment is real simple. It's going to allow families and people across this country to keep more of their money to spend on their goals, their dreams. And it's simply taking us back to last year's fiscal level.

There are all kind of families, all kinds of individuals across this country who are living on last year's budget. A simple, across-the- board amendment that says we're going to do what so many American families have to do all the time, and we're going to live within our means.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the minority whip from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting Chairman. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.

Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Wynn