Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 700) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the pilot program for alternative water source projects.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas, for yielding the time and compliment her and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for developing this legislation and preparing it and bringing it so early in the session to the House floor. I also appreciate the bipartisan cooperation with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member of the full committee, and it is good to have the gentleman from Arkansas on the floor and managing the bill. I thank the gentleman for his ever thoughtful approach to legislation.

This alternative water sources initiative is not something that we developed in the course of this Congress. It started way back in 2000, in fact, earlier than that, as the committee held hearings over a period of several years to raise the visibility of issues of water supply and groundwater withdrawals and needs of communities well off into the future.

In fact, I should point out that a former colleague of ours, later Speaker, Jim Wright, in 1958 wrote a book entitled, ``The Coming Water Famine,'' where then new Congressman Wright gathered enormous amount of data about water usage by industry, by agriculture, by homeowners, and did a calculation that showed the rising use of water intersecting with a line of steady availability.

All the water there ever was, there ever will be, is available now. We will not create new water, and he showed that in the 1980s the lines would intersect, and that, at that point, the Nation and the Congress need to face up to the need to assure the continuity of availability of water supplies, that continued withdrawal of water from the Ogallala aquifer that covers west Texas and eastern Oklahoma, a huge area of the central portion of the United States, could not continue forever. That water would be withdrawn, and there would be no further water available, just simply was not replenishing as fast as surface needs were drawing upon it.

That was the background. That was the stimulus for the alternative water

sources program that our committee included in the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000, which passed the House, the Senate and was signed into law.

The legislation was developed to address the concerns by communities all across the country over availability of water to meet their future requirements, especially in the more arid regions of the country, as we have already heard from the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney) and Mrs. Tauscher, also from California, who was the initiator of this legislation in previous Congresses.

I have read a great deal about climate change that followed the enormous amount of scientific data pouring forth from the international geophysical year by the United Nations scientific panel, scientists in the U.S. who are reporting on global climate change, and the effect that it is having upon weather and the increasing volatility and variability of the amount, timing and distribution of moisture, not just rainfall but moisture that comes in the form of snow or freezing rain. There is consensus among the climatology scientific community that the timing, intensity and duration of floods, droughts and high- intensity storms are going to continue to plague us over the decades ahead.

Pressure for additional sources of drinking water, usable water for industry and agriculture will only grow and magnify across this country, putting greater pressure on reclamation, on reuse, on advanced wastewater treatment, and even on desalination, as many countries in the world are doing.

In the 1970s, there was an experiment by a Saudi prince who chartered a vessel to go to Antarctica and harness an iceberg, put a huge plastic wrap under that iceberg so it would not melt and had it towed by tug boats to a point off the shore of Saudi Arabia. Then they drilled a hole in the center of it and pumped the water out for several years to bring fresh water to Saudi Arabia. There are not going to be very many icebergs left to be towed as the polar caps melt faster than we can harness the icebergs.

Furthermore, that experiment proved enormously expensive. It also demonstrated that there is a considerable amount of loss of iceberg water capability as the 'berg is towed.

We have to do much better than just towing icebergs. We create with this legislation a modest start on a program to help communities provide for their current needs, for household requirements, industrial needs, for agricultural uses of water, well off into the future.

This is but one important step in the long-term effort we must make to ensure the availability of water supplies and the viability of those water supplies off into the future in this time of highly uncertain climate conditions.

The gentleman raises a very important issue, one that has been of deep concern. He raises two aspects of a question, one that raises deep concern among communities along the Great Lakes who do not want to see waters of the Great Lakes pumped west to quaff the thirst of arid western States.

Several years ago, there was a proposal for a coal slurry pipeline to bring coal in a slurry pipeline from the Powder River Basin to the western end of Lake Superior to ports of Duluth and Superior; and we vigorously opposed it, because that pipeline, if it pumps east, can also pump west and could suck water out of the Great Lakes in vast amounts.

Mr. Chairman, subsequently, in a Water Resources Development Act, I succeeded with legislation to prohibit any withdrawals from the Great Lakes unless there is unanimous agreement among the eight Governors and the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario. That language is current law, but it is not strong enough. It really needs to be reinforced. Now that I am in a position to do that, we are going to reinforce it.

The second concern of the gentleman is private companies profiting from the public sector provision of water supplies, and I think we should find a way in which we can limit the profiteering while not interfering with private sector developments.

For example, the little town of Buhl, population 900 in my district, has on its water tank the slogan, ``The Finest Water in America,'' and the city began bottling that water for sale. They are using their open resources to bottle this water in these little 8-ounce and 16-ounce bottles. I wouldn't want to prevent Buhl, which has fallen on hard times, from drawing on its resources. But they are using their own money to do that.

What the gentleman is concerned about is a public, federally funded process that might stimulate the private sector. I commend the gentleman for his concern, and we shall work together to address the situation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I appreciate the fashion of the gentleman from Georgia, and I respect his consistency. He offered the same amendment yesterday. We had quite a thorough and extensive discussion and a recorded vote, which ended 166-260.

Again, I appeal to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that we are dealing with an authorization. Tomorrow we will be dealing with a different bill that does result in a direct spending reduction as determined by the Congressional Budget Office and for which the committee created an offset and reduced the size of the bill.

This bill, H.R. 700, is not a direct spending bill, and has been so verified by the Congressional Budget Office and by the Office of Management and Budget. It is not subject to the so-called PAYGO rules. An appropriation subsequently could well be subject to PAYGO, but we have yet before us the congressional budget process. We have to vote on a budget, and then we consider the appropriations. If this legislation is enacted in time for the appropriation process, hopefully it could be considered and included, and then there is a question of whether it is subjected to the PAYGO rules.

But in its present form, this is an authorization. It is not a direct spending. It is not subject, as Congressional Budget Office has ruled, to the PAYGO rules. And we made that point yesterday. We make it again today. And I rise in opposition to the amendment, but not in opposition to the approach of the gentleman, who is a true fiscal conservative and wants to ensure that dollars are wisely spent and that we are not overspending.

I assure the gentleman, this legislation, modest as it is in its scope of dollars authorized, will be subjected to the

rigorous oversight of OMB, Congressional Budget Office, procedure and the appropriation process in its new course.

The gentleman from Texas, a member of the Rules Committee, and I had a discussion about the principle involved in the gentleman's amendment in the course of our presentation at the Rules Committee for the rule covering this bill. As a result, the gentleman has offered an amendment that I think is entirely appropriate. But the point at which we are in the consideration of the legislation, and given the time it might take for the other body to act on it, would create a time frame problem through fiscal 2008. I would suggest that the language be changed to reflect two fiscal years from date of enactment, so that we have a precise time but that it is linked to date of enactment of the act, which then would be a very appropriate way to do it.

I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful presentation and the questioning in the Rules Committee, and we will draft language in cooperation with the gentleman and include that as we move forward to conference with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Both gentlemen offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman, to our bill that is well intentioned to respond to the needs of small communities, to assure that communities under a population of 10,000 are not left behind, as this program is administered. And I certainly am in consonance with that concern.

There are only maybe four communities in my congressional district that have population greater than 10,000. I think of Big Fork, population 950, and others of similar size who have needs for water resource as great proportionately as do the major metropolitan areas.

In fact, in a drought in 1988, Minneapolis was trying to encourage the Corps of Engineers to draw down the head waters of the Mississippi River to increase the flow to Minneapolis while at the same time not banning car washes, not banning sprinkling of lawns, not taking other water conservation measures and also drawing water from the Jordan Basin Reservoir underneath the Twin Cities, a 50-mile diameter basin that is water left over from the melting of the glacier 10,000 years ago, water that can never be replaced because it is an impermeable area.

And I said, oh, wait a minute. It just happened I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight; called the Corps of Engineers in and made sure they didn't draw any matter down from the head waters of the Mississippi River to serve the thirst of Minneapolis while at the same time St. Paul was incorporating water conservation measures.

Well, I cite that history to show that I am really sensitive to these needs. But we do not want to create in this legislation a preferential consideration. And when the gentleman says consider, when the language of the amendment the gentlemen are offering says consider, I take this to mean a factor to be considered, along with other relevant factors and not a set-aside and not a preference.

May I ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), and I yield to the gentleman, to be assured that he concurs in that interpretation.

I thank the gentleman. Let me ask the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) whether he shares that viewpoint.

Mr. Chairman, when I was elected to Congress, took office in 1975, we formed a Congressional Rural Caucus. There were 250 members. We had a voice on this floor, and a presence on this floor. Today there are less than 90 of us representing primarily rural areas, so we do have to be watchful for small towns, rural areas. And in the spirit of our discussion just concluded, I will accept the amendment of the gentlemen.

Mr. Speaker, although I am not opposed to the motion, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment was offered yesterday by a different gentleman from the other side. I just want to read from the legislative language in the act.

Subsection F: Uses of Grants. ``Amounts from grants received under this section may be used for engineering, design, construction and final testing of alternative water source projects designed to meet critical water supply needs. Such amounts may not be used for planning, feasibility studies, for operation, maintenance, replacement, repair or rehabilitation.'' Although we do not specifically prohibit use of funds for lobbying, no such authorization is permitted. Nonetheless, the gentleman proposes to close a potential opportunity for money to be diverted, and, therefore, we are prepared, as yesterday, to accept the gentleman's motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 700, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise with a very simple amendment, an amendment of responsibility.

As you and the House know, H.R. 700 grants $125 million for alternative water source projects. It is a program that Congress has never funded, may be a very appropriate program. For some in this Chamber, $125 million may not be very much money, but for folks in my district, and I suspect for folks around this Nation, $125 million is a lot of money.

And, again, while what this bill does may be very important, it is important that we also make a statement for financial responsibility. This amendment would apply the principle of pay-as-you-go, pay-as-you- go to any new spending that would be authorized in this legislation.

Very simple: If you are going to spend money for this project, you ought to make it a priority and identify an area where you desire to take that money from in order to pay for this project. It is a concept that has been embraced by many in this Chamber. In fact, many Members on the majority side embraced the pay-as-you-go project in their campaigns this past year. In fact, the New Direction for America, which was proposed by the majority party in the 109th Congress, says, ``Our new direction is committed to pay-as-you-go budgeting. No more deficit spending. We are committed to auditing the books and subjecting every facet of Federal spending to tough budget discipline and accountability, forcing the Congress to choose a new direction and the right priorities for all Americans.''

Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. It is a wise idea. We ought to follow that. We ought to follow that in this new Congress.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I would respectfully suggest that, unless adopted, then the new direction in which we are heading is one that will take us in a direction of greater red ink and not that of financial responsibility. So I offer this simple amendment, this PAYGO amendment to H.R. 700, and I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding. I will be very brief.

I rise to point a couple points of clarification. And I appreciate the gentlewoman from Texas and her comments, but she did say that this amendment would require finding $120 million of offsets somewhere else, regardless of whether there was any money that was ever authorized for this particular grant project. In fact, that is not the case.

On line 4 of the amendment, it says that, ``any other provision that results in costs to the Federal Government.'' So it would require that the Congress had determined that, yes, there should be money spent for these grant projects, and then the equal amount of offset money would need to be found.

I understand this is an authorizing piece of legislation; it is not requiring the money to be spent; and that we have the Appropriations Committees to do that.

But I would suggest to my colleagues that this is a matter of principle. It is a matter of principle, and it is a matter of making the statement now that we believe that, if we are going to spend money for this project and we believe that it is a priority, that we ought to find the money elsewhere in order to cover that so that we do not increase the deficit.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its current form, I am, yes, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer this motion to recommit. And I am more pleased to commend my Democratic colleagues for yesterday's recognition of the motion to recommit. They will recognize today's because it is exactly the same motion.

I think with that recognition came the realization and appreciation that motions to recommit are, indeed, substantive moves and they are substantive proposals of policy by this House of Representatives.

This motion to recommit is one about honesty; it is about honesty in the provision of the funds in the bill that is about to be adopted.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would reinforce existing Federal law by making it clear that none of the funds authorized under this act may be used to lobby or retain a lobbyist to attempt to influence Federal, State or local governmental officials. It would also expand upon existing law by specifically prohibiting Federal funds from being used to pay for membership in any association or organization. And, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, many of those dues rise to the sum of $48,000 to $50,000 or more. The funds should only be used for the purposes intended by Congress, namely, identifying alternative water source projects.

And while associations and organizations provide meaningful opportunities for collaboration and knowledge dissemination, it would not be appropriate to use hard-earned scarce Federal tax dollars for such a purpose. Such a diversion of these funds would not only limit the amount of funds available for the actual use and construction of alternative water source projects, it could indeed constitute an end run around the lobbying restrictions since many of these associations engage in lobbying activities.

In recent years, Mr. Speaker, growth in population and increasing environmental awareness is causing many communities to explore alternative water supplies through reclamation, reuse and conservation. And while the Clean Water Act construction grants prior to 1991 and State revolving loan funds since 1989 have been available for such activities, most expenditures to date have been for more traditional wastewater projects and not for enhancing water supplies through wastewater reuse and water recycling. For these compelling reasons, we need to ensure that all available resources provided through this reauthorization are used specifically for the purpose of building and improving alternative water source projects for municipal, industrial or agricultural uses in areas that are experiencing critical water supply needs.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to recognize what they recognized yesterday, and that is that motions to recommit are substantive policy motions. I urge the adoption of this motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 215 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 215 provides for the consideration of H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act of 2007, under an open rule with a preprinting requirement. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read.

The rule provides that any amendment to the bill must be printed in the Congressional Record prior to consideration of the bill. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, simply stated, maintaining an adequate water supply is critical to the health and livelihood of our agricultural industry, our economy, and our environment.

However, as critical as water is to sustaining our way of life, all too often we take it for granted. Water does not come in an infinite supply. It is, in fact, a very, very scarce resource, particularly in my region of the country.

There are significant water supply issues in my home district of California's Central Valley. The valley faces water shortages as various interests compete for this scarce resource.

The Central Valley is not unique. Water scarcity is occurring across the country and is becoming more widespread due to several factors. Population is on the rise. Pollution is a constant threat. Growth and development are expanding. And drought can strike us at any time.

Despite these pressing needs, we are severely lacking in programs that address the looming shortage. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Congressional Budget Office, and other organizations have estimated that $400 billion is needed for programs to maintain existing and build new water infrastructure. The EPA has also estimated that programs to address sewer overflows need in excess of $140 billion.

However, even meeting the needs of these programs has been challenging as this administration has constantly cut funding. Moreover, these programs deal exclusively with protecting our water quality and do not address scarcity or shortages.

While these programs are just as important, it doesn't make sense to have a one-track mind. Improving the quality of water is just one part of the equation. We also have to find innovative ways to reuse and recycle water that we have so it will be there to meet our needs as well as the needs of future generations. The rule and the bill we have before us today will begin to address this problem.

Mr. Speaker, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act of 2007, H.R. 700, is quite simple. H.R. 700 extends a critical pilot program for alternative water source projects. Alternative water source projects allow local communities to develop innovative ways to reuse and recycle water, thereby saving money and expanding water use options for the entire country. This pilot program was initially created in 2002, but the program has expired.

The bill authorizes $125 million to help communities finance pilot projects to recycle or reuse water or to develop alternative water sources. It is not an excessive investment. Given the scarcity and challenges we face, this is just a start, but this funding is absolutely critical and is a step in the right direction. This will help spur technological development so that individuals, agriculture, and industry have access to the water they need. The bill is also fiscally responsible as it provides a 50 percent matching requirement.

Many should be recognized for their interest in ensuring that the future water supply will meet future water demands. I would like to commend my colleagues Mr. McNerney, Mrs. Tauscher, and Mr. Kagen for introducing this important bill. I would also like to thank Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Mica for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. This is a necessary bill. And this is a critically important investment for people today and for generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, maintaining an adequate water

supply is critical to the health and livelihood of our agricultural industry, our economy and our environment. Water is not an infinite supply, and water scarcity is occurring across the country and becoming more widespread. We have to find innovative ways to reuse and recycle the water that we have so it will be there to meet our needs, as well as the needs of future generations, and we have to provide the means to make that happen. This bill does just that.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act, is designed to help communities with current or impending water shortages. I support the bill.

We know that such shortages can have many causes. For example, global warming is likely to cause or exacerbate water shortages in the U.S., especially in the Southwest. Under those conditions, alternative water sources will be more important than ever, but communities all over the United States are also fighting to protect their water supplies from overpumping by bottled water companies, who are making billions of dollars from this public resource. My amendment would remove from consideration for these Federal subsidies those areas where bottled water companies are contributing to the demise of the water supply.

According to the International Bottled Water Association, the volume of water privatized has increased between 8 and 12 percent every year since 2001. In 2006, bottled water companies enjoyed $11 billion in revenue from the United States alone. It is estimated that about 25 percent of the bottled water consumed in the United States comes from municipal water supplies.

The effects of the excessive influence of the bottled water industry can go beyond the regional confines of water source depletion and environmental destruction. It codifies a preference for corporate access to water over public access.

I represent the Cleveland area, that, like many cities nearby, relies on Lake Erie for drinking water. A few years ago, there were two instances in which a company received a permit to privatize Great Lakes water in bulk.

In both instances, the projects were abandoned because of the public outcry. In response, the Great Lakes States, with assistance from Canadian Premiers and other stakeholders, attempted to negotiate the conditions under which water could be withdrawn from the lake.

As the negotiations closed, bottled water companies managed to wedge their language into the final agreement. The language also allowed virtually unlimited withdrawals for bottled water companies, while attempting to protect against other privatization attempts.

Such unprecedented favoritism can actually represent a giant step backwards for the notion of water as a public trust. The loophole leaves the entire agreement open to commerce clause challenge or to a challenge in the World Trade Organization. If such a challenge were successful, there would be no limits to privatization of Great Lakes water. It would open the water of the Great Lakes to use by the growing and increasingly thirsty regions where they are having water shortages and where water shortages make it financially viable to pipe water across several States. We would not just be back to square one; we would take a giant step backwards.

This is a classic example, Mr. Chairman, in which greed of the bottled water companies is garnering profits at the expense of the public. I have not even talked about the overeffect of pumping, like the increased cost of finding a replacement source, the loss of connected streams, lakes and rivers, the land subsidence, the salt water intrusion near coasts that render the water undrinkable, and the loss of wildlife habitat.

Another example is emblematic of conflicts between communities and bottled water companies all over the United States. In two small towns in New Hampshire, Nottingham and Barrington, a company called USA Springs is attempting to drill wells that would pump 310,000 gallons a day in an area populated with homes that get their water from small private household wells. The community is worried about a loss of water supply, loss of water quality, and degradation of nearby wetlands.

A very conservative estimate said that USA Springs is looking at about $303 million per year in revenue from this site alone. With that kind of revenue potential, it can be expected they will spend big to make this project happen. This is exactly what they are doing. The result is that USA Springs

is now dangerously close to winning a battle that started in 2001.

The basic building blocks of life, like water, must be accessible by people before corporations, period. When access to the essentials is threatened by outside excessive private gain, I will stand firmly in defense of the public every time.

Mr. Chairman, I intend to explore this issue deeply as Chair of the Domestic Policy Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I ask the chairman, my good friend from Minnesota, to work with me as Chair of Transportation and Infrastructure on the broader issue of water privatization and its effects on quality and access.

I yield to Mr. Oberstar.

I want to thank the chairman for his comments and his dedication to the public good. I look forward to working with you on this to protect public water supplies and to protect the public's right to access.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act of 2007. This important legislation would reauthorize appropriations of $125 million for the EPA's alternative water sources grant program.

Mr. Chairman, rapid population growth and development along with an increased awareness of the impact of massive water withdrawals and the threat of global climate change have forced many local communities to explore alternative sources of water.

H.R. 700 provides one alternative for meeting these future water needs by encouraging the testing and implementation of technology that reclaim and reuse water from municipal, industrial and agricultural needs.

I applaud the efforts of my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Congressman McNerney and Congresswoman Tauscher, for their efforts in moving this legislation forward and ensuring that communities are able to meet current and future water needs.

This committee approved similar legislation in the 109th Congress, and it is my hope this year Congress will finally approve legislation and forward it to the President for his signature.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Chairman, what time do we have left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, the primary author of the legislation, Mrs. Tauscher.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for speakers. I want to express my appreciation to all of the staff of the committee. I ask for support of H.R. 700.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), almost to say the same thing we said yesterday: He has gotten the appropriations mixed up with the authorization.

This is an authorization committee, and actual funding of these programs through the appropriations process, which is where this will be more appropriate. A similar manner it was offered yesterday, as we said, to H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act, and was defeated by 166-260.

This amendment would require that any authorization of appropriations be considered with corresponding offsets regardless of whether the program ever receives any funding. It is possible that it won't.

In the example of the Alternative Water Source pilot program under consideration today, a program that again has never been funded through the appropriations process, this amendment would require the identification of $125 million in offsets, regardless of whether appropriations are ever enacted for this program.

During the first few days of the legislative session, the new Democratic majority renewed the PAYGO rules to require the identification of offsets to any changes in direct spending by legislative initiatives.

This bill has no effect on direct spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office in its analysis of the bill, enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. Therefore, the offset requirements of PAYGO are never triggered.

I also remind my colleagues that the PAYGO provision was allowed to expire under Republican control of the House, with no attempt by the former Republican leadership to restore its protections to the Federal budgetary process. To now claim to be the champions of fiscal responsibility and attempt to hold Congress to stricter budgetary principles than instituted under their own leadership is a fairly hollow argument.

The gentleman's amendment would require offsets for any authorization of appropriations, regardless of its impact on Federal receipts. Were the gentleman's amendment adopted, my expectation is that every authorization of appropriations, whether it be for clean water, safer schools, better health care, or national defense, would require equal offsets. This is an inappropriate limitation on the ability of Congress to address the needs of the Nation.

Fiscal responsibility is a noble cause, but not at the cost of hindering Congress's ability to meet the needs of our constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I think what I did say is, it is not the authorization; it is the appropriations that I spoke about that would cause this to happen. It would trigger it. It is not the authorization. We are an authorizing committee.