Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2641) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to submit to the House for its consideration H.R. 2641, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008.

I want to first thank all the members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. I particularly want to thank my partner and ranking member, Mr. Hobson of Ohio, for his extraordinary friendship and cooperation this year.

I would parenthetically point out that for the last 8 years, Mr. Hobson has come to this floor as chairman of an appropriations subcommittee to manage a bill. I am wiser and richer because of the advice and counsel of Mr. Hobson throughout the development of this bill, and I thank my friend deeply.

This is a truly bipartisan bill that represents a fair and balanced compromise. I believe this is the way our constituents expect Representatives to work together, and I am proud of our bipartisan process. I also want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, and the ranking minority member, Mr. Lewis, for their support.

And I deeply want to thank all of the staff of the subcommittee, Dixon Butler, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, Taunja Berquam, Lori Maes, Kevin Cook, Rob Blair, and Ben Nicholson, for their very hard work on this bill. I want to also thank both Shari Davenport of my office and Kenny Kraft of Mr. Hobson's office. And I would also acknowledge our agency detailee, Chris Frabotta from the Corps of Engineers, for his assistance in putting this bill and report together. These people form a great team and their work has been invaluable. I would also note for the membership that Chris has served two tours of duty in Iraq as part of the Army Corps of Engineers and Taunja has also served our country in Iraq on one tour also with the Army Corps of Engineers.

Total funding for the Energy and Water Development in fiscal year 2008 is $31.603 billion. This bill cuts lower priority programs. These spending cuts include 37 programs in weapons under the Department of Energy, totaling $632 million below the President's request, and 20 other programs, totaling $280 million below the President's request.

On the other hand, this bill funds the most worthwhile projects and programs at or above the requested level. It reduces some programs that are less valuable or less urgent and redirects funding from previous years that has not been obligated or spent.

All our constituents are in shock at the high price of gas. There is nearly half a billion dollars provided in this bill for research, development, and demonstration efforts in biofuels and vehicle technologies. I would also note that this subcommittee has been working to provide additional funding for this critical area for 3 years, first of all, under the leadership of Mr. Hobson and, more recently, myself. We are today funding above the President's request for biofuels and vehicle technologies over fiscal year 2006. Together we again increase funding in 2007, and this subcommittee this year made additional investments in vehicle technologies and biofuels for fiscal year 2008. Compared to the President's 2006 request, the subcommittee has worked in a bipartisan fashion to address the energy crisis by increasing funding for these areas by over 100 percent.

These efforts will not bring down the price of gas immediately, but they will help put us on a path to decrease dependence on imported oil and greater fuel efficiency. These are critical steps we must take today.

One of the reasons for our current energy price crisis is the past lack of investment in energy. In fiscal year 2006, adjusted for inflation, government funding for energy research, development, and demonstration had fallen to less than one-quarter of its 1980 levels. In the fiscal year 2007 year-long continuing resolution, Congress began to address this by increasing funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities at the Department of Energy by $300 million. For example, in fiscal year 2006, adjusted for inflation, government funding for conservation R&D

was 49.2 percent of where it was in 1980. This year it will be 68.7 percent. The bill provides increased funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy that is $400 million above 2007 levels.

Energy consumption can be cut in the near term through increased funding for weatherization assistance. This bill provides $245 million in weatherization grants and is an increase of $100 million from the President's request. In addition, the bill redirects fossil energy funding to emphasize carbon capture and sequestration.

Increased funding is included for nuclear energy as well, balancing support for licensing new light water nuclear reactors, the kind that currently provide 20 percent of our electricity, for demonstrating the safer Gen IV helium-cooled nuclear reactor technology and for research and development, particularly on the nuclear fuel cycle.

Nuclear weapons or weapons material in the hands of terrorists is acknowledged by the President and others to be the number one terrorist threat to the United States. The Department of Energy takes the lead in combating this threat by advancing international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation with an $878 million, or 74 percent, increase to the President's proposed operating level for legitimate nuclear nonproliferation programs.

Testimony before our committee has made clear that there are significant opportunities for protecting such nuclear material where it exists, enhancing monitoring systems that detect it should it be moved illegitimately, and transferring it to safer locations. This bill also redirects funding provided in 1999 but never spent to initiate a nuclear fuel bank under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This fuel bank, conceived originally by former Senator Nunn and others, is intended to remove the motivation for countries that wish to rely on nuclear energy to develop their own uranium enrichment capabilities. This is the precise concern that the U.S. and many other nations have today with the country of Iran.

Nuclear nonproliferation activities have included parallel efforts for the United States and Russia to dispose of surplus weapons-origin plutonium. The U.S. has pursued fabrication of mixed oxide fuels, so- called MOX, for use in commercial nuclear reactors followed by disposal in Yucca Mountain as its strategy. It is assumed that Russia will eventually agree to follow a similar path. Russia prefers a different path to dispose of its weapons-origin plutonium by using it to fuel breeder reactors. This approach would result in more plutonium, not less. The administration and the defense authorizers ended a direct linkage between the U.S. and Russian programs last year. Therefore, with no expectation of any Russian plutonium disposition occurring under this program, the U.S. MOX facility is no longer a nuclear nonproliferation activity. And very importantly, and I would emphasize this, the subcommittee transfers the project to the nuclear energy program along with enough funding to allow construction to proceed. This funding for MOX will be accompanied by continuous oversight. This subcommittee will closely monitor the progress of the MOX facility. If mistakes continue to be made, the Department of Energy will find it very difficult to make a successful case for any further support.

Without question, Mr. Chairman, there is a need for a comprehensive nuclear defense strategy and stockpile plan to guide transformation and downsizing of the stockpile nuclear weapons complex; and until progress is made on this crucial issue, there will be no new facilities or Reliable Replacement Warhead. Only when a future nuclear weapons strategy is established can the Department of Energy determine the requirements for the future of nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear weapons complex.

Further, testimony before this subcommittee has pointed to the potential for the international community to misunderstand development by the United States of a new nuclear weapon. Moreover, for the last decade, the administration has said that stockpile stewardship was a path to maintain the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. Now, with three major facilities that we were told were needed for stockpile stewardship all overbudget, all over their deadlines, and all not completed, we are told ``let's do something else.''

Given the serious international and domestic consequences of the U.S. initiating a new nuclear weapons production activity, it is critical that the administration lay out a comprehensive course of action before funding is appropriated. Major transformation of the weapons complex can only be produced with significant bipartisan support, lasting over multiple sections of Congress and multiple administrations. Given the track record of mismanagement at the agency for projects that have a plan, I don't think it is asking too much for a comprehensive nuclear strategy before we build a new nuclear weapon.

People work hard for their money before they pay their Federal taxes. The Department of Energy has squandered vast sums of this money. Project management at the Department of Energy must be reformed. The Department of Energy is the largest civilian contracting agency of the Federal Government and spends over 90 percent of its annual budget on contracts. In 1990 the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, began an annual assessment resulting in a list of programs that are at high risk for waste, abuse, and mismanagement. DOE contract management has been on that list year in and year out for 17-long miserable years. GAO has found that since October 2002, alone, DOE has achieved its performance goal of implementing projects within 10 percent of cost and schedule baselines only about one-third of the time.

One of the management failures is the waste treatment plant at Hanford, Washington, where the construction cost overrun now exceeds $8 billion. This is just one example of inexcusable, ineffective, and wasteful project management at the Department of Energy. DOE's inability to effectively manage critical projects has real consequences for our Nation and calls into question their ability to ensure that we are prepared to meet important challenges.

In the bill, DOE is directed to work with the GAO to develop a concrete plan to get off the GAO high-risk list.

There are also elements in this bill, important ones, dedicated to the environmental cleanup responsibilities of the Department and for the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as the Bureau of Reclamation.

I do believe, Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill and would recommend it to my colleagues' attention and would request their support.

Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just make a few comments. One is, I do not believe that Mr. Hobson was on the floor when I thanked him for his sage advice.

As he mentioned in his opening remarks, as I did in mine, he has chaired eight times and has brought bills to the floor eight times on appropriation subcommittees. He has been a great friend and a great teacher. I would suggest that the mistakes I make are my own and not a failure of Mr. Hobson or the ably trained staff on the committee.

I would also simply point out in all seriousness that the differences, so to speak, between Mr. Hobson and myself on MOX are marginal and at a matter of degrees. We are agreed as far as the failure of the Department of Energy and their management practices. We are agreed that they are forewarned that they had better not make one mistake in South Carolina on this project. And I would very strongly emphasize that the moneys for MOX are where they should be and where I certainly want them to remain, and that is within the energy programs of the Department of Energy because MOX no longer has anything to do with proliferation, and if left in that account, would have eaten half of that very important program alive from a monetary standpoint.

I would emphasize this is not simply an issue of money, but keeping that money in its appropriate account, and that is in the energy account at the Department of Energy. Again I would thank the gentleman for his words on this project on this House floor.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I thank the gentleman for his concern about this important topic.

I agree with him that advanced battery research and development is essential in our goals to increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions. That is why we have included an additional $10 million over the President's request in this bill for advanced battery R&D.

I thank the gentleman for his passionate support of the domestic automotive industry and appreciate the industry's effect on the national economy because I have a strong manufacturing presence in my district. Technology development is vital to the success of the manufacturing sector, and Congress should continue its support of R&D.

I also thank the gentleman for his acknowledgment of our budget constraints. The subcommittee will be happy to work with him and the rest of our colleagues as we work our way through conference.

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

I will assure the gentlewoman that I do, and I will.

How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I would recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 1\1/2\ minutes.

I assume the majority has the right to close general debate?

Mr. Chairman, I only have one more speaker and I would close with that speaker, Mr. Spratt from South Carolina, if there are no further speakers on Mr. Hobson's side.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, to both Mr. Shimkus, as well as my friend Mr. Costello, I can assure the gentlemen from Illinois that it is the intention of the committee not to delay FutureGen.

And I would add parenthetically that the changes made by the committee are to ensure that this project does proceed.

It is the committee's intention not to change or alter the focus of the project as described by the gentleman. The committee is concerned with the ability of the Department of Energy to complete construction projects of all kinds on time and within budget, and that's why the actions were taken.

For both yourself and Mr. Costello, as I tell people, I grew up in Gary, Indiana, with about four integrated steel facilities. I'm a carbon guy. We have a significant issue as far as the use of carbon in this country, and one of the ways to solve it is to proceed with FutureGen. So I do look forward to working with both of you as we proceed.

I can assure the gentlemen from both Washington and New Jersey that the committee is aware of this sustainable energy source and will continue to work with and provide oversight of the Department of Energy to ensure that renewable marine and hydroenergy development, both from the oceans, waves, tides and streams, as well as for energy from hydroelectric dams is a priority of the agency. It is the committees's intention to fund these new technologies for $6 million for research, development, and demonstration for new waterpower technologies.

Part of our approach to the energy crisis is the support of a broad range of energy and conservation technologies so that we have the best chance of meeting the challenge before us. A diverse energy supply for portfolio is key to providing reliable electricity for all of America's homes and businesses.

And I deeply appreciate the gentleman raising this important issue.

I would rise in opposition, Mr. Chairman.

Then I would move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask a parliamentary inquiry, please.

It would be my understanding that on this particular amendment, because I have moved to strike the last word per the Chair's suggestion, that I can only speak once on the amendment?

As opposed to rising in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Westmoreland.

First of all, he did indicate that he was concerned about reinvestigations. I would simply indicate to my colleagues that the world changes every day, and there are times when we need to reassess the circumstances so that we can spend the taxpayers' dollars as wisely as possible.

The fact is that the Nation's investment in our water resources infrastructure has declined over the last three decades, from $6 billion per year to less than $4 billion in constant dollars.

If the tragedy in New Orleans has taught us anything, I hope it is that we have neglected our infrastructure. If the suffering of the residents in the gulf doesn't illustrate the point, simple fiscal prudence should. The cost of recovery in New Orleans will far exceed what it would have cost to provide additional flood and storm protection.

There are large cities that face high and increasing risk of catastrophic flooding. Sacramento is just one example.

We have high-hazard dams with safety issues. There are countless communities that do not have flood protection commensurate with the risk to those communities.

Much of our infrastructure is reaching its design life. Over 50 percent of the locks and dams owned by the Corps of Engineers are in this category. Aging infrastructure brings increasing costs, yet the funding for accounts at the Army Corps for this particular function have been flat over the last 30 years.

Circumstances have changed from the time much of our infrastructure has been designed, development patterns have changed, transportation networks and requirements have evolved. Yet we are not investing enough today to maintain what we already own or complete projects that are in progress today, much less plan for the future needs for the safety of our citizens and economic viability of our transportation system.

Due to insufficient funding, schedules are slipping and costs are growing, as we piecemeal these projects, if we do not act in a timely fashion.

There is a significant and growing backlog of civil works projects. Current estimates are as high as $60 billion. Funding for studies and investigations must be adequately funded so that we can proceed with these very important projects. And given the backlog in construction projects, the funding for investigations account is less than the current year.

The bill focuses funding on completing ongoing projects and maintaining existing infrastructure. However, it is very important, obviously, to plan for the future.

I would ask that my colleagues oppose the amendment.

I want to thank the distinguished gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the committee. He is correct, it has been a subject of our hearing process as well. For some time now the committee has been concerned that the Corps' regulatory process is not being undertaken in an expeditious manner.

I want to assure the gentleman and all of my colleagues that we on the subcommittee have every intention of helping him bring greater transparency and efficiency to the Army Corps' regulatory process, both in terms of your particular concerns, as well as those nationwide.

I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue. There is a theme in the last two colloquies, and it's a regulatory process. I certainly agree with the gentleman that the Corps' regulatory program needs to do a better job meeting its deadlines, especially with regard to section 404 permits under the newly issued guidance.

The gentleman's concerns are very timely, and they are warranted. I assure him that the subcommittee will work hard to address this issue as the bill moves to conference.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but I don't disagree with everything he has enunciated in his defense of his position.

The two previous speakers before the gentleman talked about red tape and delay in the regulatory process with Army Corps. I would assume that every member of this subcommittee has had those meetings with the Corps, and we are certainly trying to rectify that problem on the theory that the sooner projects can be completed, the more benefit will enure to the taxpayers of this country and its citizens.

The gentleman's also right to enumerate the large backlog that we have on construction and other Corps facilities in this country, and that is one of the things that we are trying to address in this bill.

I would point out that the approach that we have taken, not just for the fiscal year 2008 bill, but in the last several years under the leadership of then-Chairman Hobson, was to make sure that we face the challenges of the future in a very disciplined and rigorous approach that encompasses a broader context.

The bill continues the financial management contractor reforms to ensure that the Corps manages its budget to the best interest of the taxpayers. The recommendations include direction that the Corps continues to take action in considering additional factors as they proceed in the planning process.

And again, it has been the custom of this subcommittee in designing and structuring bills for the last several years to look at projects and marshal our resources so that some are completed, as opposed to bumbling on forever. And I wouldn't argue with the gentleman about that concern.

We have, again, done that in this bill to make sure that those additional construction dollars that the gentleman seeks to remove from the bill are put to good and rigorous use. And I would point out that this is not an abstraction. This goes to the core of people's health and safety.

Two floods ago, on the little Calumet River in Northwest Indiana, we had a gentleman in Highland, Indiana, lose his life. He was only one life in one flood. But for that man, and for his family, and for that community, it was a tragedy. We are constructing a flood control project that insures that that never happens again.

That's why we have flood control programs in the city of Dallas and its vicinities, to make sure that when you have significant events, as we have had this week in the State of Texas, that you do not have loss of life and, hopefully, you can diminish the loss of property.

We have huge commercial centers, ports like Long Beach, ports like the city of New York, ports like Baltimore, up and down our coast. We want to make sure that the commerce of this country moves as efficiently as possible, so that our economy grows and we can provide good paying jobs for all of our residents.

We have a State capitol in the most populous State in this country, Sacramento, California, one dike a way from a catastrophic event as far as the loss of human life and the destruction of properties.

Those are the types of projects, and those are the types of priorities that we are attempting to get at in this bill. And that's why these moneys are set aside, and would be opposed to their removal from this bill.

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

I again would reference some of his words where he indicated that $18 million is no small sum of money. It is a very significant sum of money, and I

would agree with him. It is a significant sum of money, and it is very important to the programs that comprise the Mississippi River and Tributaries Program. And my concern is, if you would, carving out a particular geographic region for this particular cut and would emphasize that while it is but one geographic region and water system within our country, there are consequences of the amendments because channel improvement programs in Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee would be affected. There are levees for the Mississippi River in States like Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. There is a flood waste system in the State of Louisiana, and there are operation and maintenance costs.

These are all significant and important programs dealing, again, with the priority of people's health and safety, the movement of commerce, and the protection of property.

I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

First of all, let me thank Mr. Obey, the chairman of the committee, for his good work with us on this bill. And I want to add my support to Chairman Visclosky on doing a good job on his first bill, and I will talk about that a little bit further.

This is the first Energy and Water appropriation bill that my colleague from Indiana has developed and brought to the floor. The first one, I found out, is always the hardest one, but he has done a great job and it is a good bill; and I have certainly enjoyed working with him this year in a new position for me also as the ranking member on this bill.

It certainly helps to have an allocation that is $1.1 billion over the administration's request. However, I do not disagree with the major funding decision that the chairman has made in this bill.

This bill is a very thoughtful approach to some very difficult issues, including investing in our Nation's water infrastructure, developing domestic energy sources with less impact on global climate, and fostering our national security through rational efforts on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear weapons.

I want to comment briefly on a couple of specific programs and projects, including several that Chairman Visclosky has just recently discussed. I fully support the increased spending for water resources infrastructure. We have chronically underinvested in this infrastructure in recent years both in this administration and, frankly, in the previous administration.

And the hurricanes of 2005 taught us some very hard lessons about the consequences of such underinvestment.

The Corps already has a significant backlog of construction projects, a backlog that, frankly, is only going to get larger with the next Water Resources Development Act, which we don't have the money to fund that.

I'm very pleased that the chairman maintains the continuing contracts and financial management reforms for the Army Civil Works program. These reforms are critical if the Corps is to get its house in order, and if it is to make responsible use of the $5.5 billion we provide in this bill. And let me say that not fixing the Corps' problems has cost us a lot of money, because when we don't complete projects on time or don't complete parts of projects, those projects grow in cost and it makes the problem even worse. And therefore, the underfunding of this by the administration, and not just this administration, but previous administrations, has not been helpful.

I generally agree with the majority's priorities for the Department of Energy. It is essential that we develop advanced energy technologies that increase our energy security by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lessening our dependence on foreign oil. However, I will caution that increased spending on these technologies is no guarantee of increased results, especially at the Department of Energy.

I want to briefly talk on this subject of loan guarantees. I will state up front that I have no confidence whatsoever that the Department of Energy is capable of managing this program in a responsible manner. That said, I recognize the congressional and industry pressure in favor of loan guarantees.

You may hear two complaints about our bill, that we do not provide the full administration request of $9 billion for loan guarantees, and that we did not include nuclear power plants in the $7 billion. Those criticisms miss one essential fact: that Congress already provided DOE with $4 billion for loan guarantees in the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution that was not restricted to any particular energy technologies. The Department could apply all $4 billion to nuclear power plants if they so choose. But let me tell you, they don't have any expertise over there on this, and it's going to be a mess because they don't know how to handle it and they don't know how to underwrite these loans. But they're going ahead with the program because Congress is pushing them into it.

Now I want to talk about nuclear weapons.

I share the majority's concerns on the reliable replacement warhead. The concept of RRW has merit if it allows us to have a smaller stockpile of more reliable weapons that will not require nuclear testing. But all we have right now is a vague promise. What we need to see is a significant stockpile plan from the administration that shows how developing the RRW will actually get us to a much smaller future stockpile. Such a stockpile plan is also essential before we invest significant resources in modernizing the DOE's nuclear weapons complex. For that reason our bill does not fund RRW, and makes roughly a 10 percent reduction in the weapons account activities.

We should not be spending billions to modernize a Cold War footprint of the weapons complex until the Department of Defense defines what kind of future stockpile DOE will have to support. I don't think most people are really aware of how this all works, but the Defense Department is the customer, DOE is the provider.

I am aware that there are Members' and administration concerns about the effect these cuts may have on weapons facilities. I will address these concerns later in my discussions.

Now let me talk about one that really gets me going.

There is really only one place in this bill, and I see the chairman smiling, where I have a really significant difference of opinion with the majority, and that is funding for the MOX plant. For those Members who are not familiar with this project, let me do a little quick review.

In early 2000, the United States and Russia agreed for each country to dispose of 34 metric tons of excess weapons-usable plutonium. Each country had a preferred technology for plutonium disposition. The U.S. wanted immobilization, and Russia wanted fast reactors. So, they reached a compromise to convert the plutonium into mixed oxide fuel to be burned in existing commercial lightwater reactors. The U.S. and Russia were supposed to proceed in parallel with their respective MOX projects. Well, guess what? The Russians are coming. Last year, Sergey Kiriyenko, the head of ROSATOM in Russia, told the chairman and myself that MOX is an obsolete and expensive technology, and Russia has no intention of building a MOX plant unless the international community pays 100 percent of the cost. If Russia has to spend any of its own money for plutonium disposition, then it will use fast reactors. He couldn't believe that we were dumb enough to still want to build a MOX plant in the United States. Well, guess what? We are going to build one because we are that dumb, I guess, because DOE and some in Congress still think we should proceed with construction of this plant.

The project was sold to Congress as costing only $1 billion. That's where it started out. The latest estimate, and they haven't broken ground yet, is $4.7 billion. And that's before construction actually starts. Given DOE's dismal track record of controlling costs, the final price tag will certainly be much higher. The total set of facilities and operations that must be completed to dispose of the 34 metric tons of U.S. plutonium has an estimated life-cycle cost of $11 billion. And the project is now a mere 11 years behind schedule.

So, what has been the response of this cost growth and schedule slipping and the Russian abandonment of the MOX approach? The authorizers delinked the U.S. and Russia project, meaning they want the U.S. MOX project to go forward with or without any Russian progress. The U.S. material, frankly, is not at risk. What we really wanted to do was to eliminate the 34 metric tons of the Russians. So now, what is the incentive for the Russians to go forward and eliminate theirs? So, we lost all our leverage.

This is not about nonprolifieration, it's all about jobs and economic development in South Carolina. Without any competition, DOE picked the Savannah Rivers site as the place for the MOX project. Some claim that South Carolina only accepted this mission with great reluctance, and insisted on DOE building a MOX plant so that plutonium would have an assured path out of the State. Well, that argument is bogus for two reasons.

First, the 34 metric tons of plutonium is not presently at Savannah River. The vast majority of it is stored at the Pantex plant in Texas. The government does not have an obligation to get this material out of South Carolina because this material isn't in South Carolina.

Second, some folks assume that construction operation of the MOX plant somehow guarantees this plutonium material will leave their State. Well, it doesn't. We have testimony on the record from DOE making very clear that Yucca Mountain will be full to its authorized capacity by the year 2010. Any material generated after that date, whether spent MOX reactor fuel or even vitrified plutonium, will remain in storage onsite until Yucca is expanded or a second repository is built. That means this plutonium material will remain in South Carolina for a long time. And during that time, they're going to be able to sue us for $100 million a year because we haven't moved it. Does this sound dumb? Does this sound like smart business? Not to this Member.

I had high hopes that the Secretary of Energy had the background and skills to make a real difference at DOE, and certainly on this project he could have made a difference. But I have lost confidence in him, and it started over his unwillingness to change course on the MOX project when circumstances changed.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Not only has the administration stubbornly insisted on ``staying the course'' on this troubled project, but the authorizing committees with jurisdiction have failed to exercise oversight and taken action on MOX. Even the fiscal conservatives in my own party, who were so anxious to criticize every earmark, miss the fact that this project will waste $11 billion of taxpayer dollars. I want you to know under my watch, when I was chairman of this, we gave it zero funding. And I would have liked to have done that. But I understand the pressures on the

chairmen on both the committee and the subcommittee. And frankly, they have reduced the level significantly from the requested amount.

I really appreciate the fact that the chairman of the full committee and Mr. Visclosky made a statement, the statement was actually by Mr. Visclosky and supported by Chairman Obey. And the chairman said, ``The MOX plant is one of only a few construction activities supported in the bill. And DOE is put on notice that the first sign of significant cost growth, schedule slip or requirements change, the committee will shut this project down.'' In future years, maybe this project will run off the rails, and I want Members to see what happens here.

I offered to the administration and to others not to build this plant the way they're building it. I think it's silly to build 34 metric ton capacity and then have to tear the plant down and send it out to Utah and put it underground. What I really wanted to do, and offered to do, was build a plant that we could design up front to where we could do other types of fuels in this, rather than the weapons-grade plutonium, but nobody seems to be listening anywhere at this point. But I do appreciate the full chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee and their comments.

I want to talk about the policy on earmarks. I think we've got that straightened out now. I wish it had been in this bill, but I think it's going to move forward. And I think we fail in our responsibility if we don't do oversight. I think it's good to take out both the President's earmarks and our earmarks. I did that before. Any new starts that were in the bill, I took them out when I was chairman, and I want to congratulate the chairman now for doing the same thing. We need to provide more oversight.

I really get upset that the way the Corps of Engineers is done today is we get no real input into that. It's all basically done by an agency within the White House and by some people that we don't even meet with and we don't even know. They are saying what's going to go forward in somebody's community or not going forth in somebody's community; and frankly, we're here and know our communities better than somebody in some agency that we can't find.

I want to just conclude by saying I am pleased that Chairman Visclosky has continued the bipartisan cooperation in this bill. I am proud to be a part of a subcommittee that focuses on getting the job done efficiently and does not let partisanship get in the way of doing the right thing for the American people.

This subcommittee could not get the job done so well without exceptional staff. I want to thank Dixon Butler, Taunja Berquam, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski and Lori Maes on the majority side for their hard work and dedication. I might say, many of those people worked when I was the chairman before, and I thank the majority for keeping them, and for the good work that all of them have done.

I also want to thank Chris Frabotta, our Corps detailee this year, who comes from the Corps' Wilmington District and has served in Iraq. I also want to thank Kevin Cook, Ben Nicholson and Rob Blair on our minority subcommittee staff, and Shari Davenport on the chairman's personal staff and Kenny Kraft on my staff for a great job. We have all worked together on this bill for a number of years, and we are continuing to do that.

I just really want to thank my chairman, my partner on this bill. I frankly intend to be as good a partner to the chairman as he was to me when I was the chairman. And the only way we can solve some of the problems of the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy is, frankly, for us to continue working together.

Despite my concerns about the level of spending without congressional direction, I intend to support this bill to the full. And I encourage the other members of the committee to do so as well.

Once again, I thank the chairman for his courtesy, and I look forward to working with him for a number of years.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

(Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her interest in this area. She is correct; the committee fully expects DOE to fulfill its commitment, recognizing the exact amount will change because the core research funding in this bill deviates from the President's request. And this DOE funding is in addition to the $15 million the subcommittee is providing NRC to support university programs.

In reply, yes, we will make that request. And should the subcommittee find the DOE's response unacceptable or not receive a response by the deadline stipulated, I commit to working in conference to direct the DOE to support university nuclear programs using core research program funding.

I would be happy to work with my colleague on this issue. The subcommittee recognizes support for university-based research reactors is an important part of the Federal stewardship role for the U.S. nuclear science and engineering enterprise.

I am committed to addressing any outstanding issues related to the barriers in conference, if necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. Chairman, might I ask the time left on each side.

I have 2 minutes left. I yield it to a member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

No, but I will yield my extra 45 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Absolutely.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of the amendment to reduce funding for the Corps of Engineers construction account. And let me give you some perspective on this.

This account is already chronically underfunded by the administration, and it has been in the past. And there's already a backlog of several billion dollars of Corps construction projects.

Projects already underway, I'm going to talk about one here, just to give you an example of what happens, such as the Olmsted Lock and Dam, wind up costing far more and taking far longer to complete because of funding constraints in this account.

The subcommittee is trying to do the responsible thing by dedicating sufficient funds to address this backlog. Our priority is on completing projects that are already underway and limiting new starts. And I can tell you there were a lot of Members when I was chairman that got really ticked off at me, especially new Members, because they had new starts and we wouldn't do them because we said we've got to finish what we've got before we go on to other things.

The Olmsted Dam, an example. It was supposed to be completed in 20 years and for a cost of $700 million. Because we didn't do it and fund it right, and money was taken and put into other accounts, that's now grown to $1.5 billion to finish this very needed dam on the Ohio River. And the project still isn't done. We don't have the money to fund all that they could use on this project in any one year.

Part of the problem is that this Congress, over the years, keeps adding projects to our account, and then we don't fund them, or we fund them partially, and the cost goes up.

I think it would be irresponsible, at this point, with the things that we've put into effect, to stop new starts, to complete projects and get them finished and stop this cost growth, to take this money out now. Frankly, this is one account where I think we could have used more money over the years and we could have done a better job.

He is right when we talk about Sacramento. Sacramento, those levees were built years ago, some of them by farmers, some of them by we don't know who. And they haven't been maintained to the degree they should be maintained. And it's a problem waiting to happen.

We're trying to take responsible steps, but we've run into the red tape and stuff. The Corps is trying. We've tried to do some things with the Corps. We're continuing to improve the Corps.

Frankly, 4 years ago when I became chairman, there were a lot of things wrong with the Corps that we've made right. I think the Corps is doing a much better job today. They've got a lot of new management techniques that we're using that they weren't doing in the past.

I'll give you an example. When I became chairman I asked to see their vision for this country and the waterways. They didn't have one. We asked them, What is your 5-year development plan for the waterways of this country? They didn't have one. But they do now.

Now is not the time to stop them, because under Chairman Visclosky, and previously, we've started to do the right thing to stop this cost increase and to get this under control. And frankly, if we would take this amendment, we would do great damage to the infrastructure or the future infrastructure of this country.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

There are no new projects in this bill because there are no new projects proposed in the bill at this point. There could be later. I would hope not.

And I want to tell you, we also in the past took out the President's new starts too, not just the Congress's. We took out the President's.

Mr. Chairman, because of the flood mapping crisis in Houston, Texas, and the need for flood control, let me add my appreciation and submit my statement for the Record in support of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak in strong support of H.R. 2641, the ``Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2007.'' I also rise to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. Visclosky, the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee and his ranking member, Mr. Hobson of Ohio, for working together in a constructive effort to renew America's dependence on foreign oil and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, this bill merits our support because it increases the Nation's commitment to long-term basic research by increasing the Federal investment that is so critical to developing the next generation of scientific breakthroughs. Federal funding for research and development has declined steadily over the last decade, and sound science has been compromised by political interference. This legislation takes a giant step toward reversing this disturbing trend.

Mr. Chairman, in the 1970s, our Nation faced an energy crisis unlike any we had ever experienced before. The OPEC oil embargo of 1973 led to skyrocketing prices, long gas lines, gas sales only every other day, and shortages where gas was simply unavailable. We experienced another oil shock in the late 1970s and under the leadership of President Jimmy Carter, America responded with unprecedented initiatives for energy research. But over the years, gas prices came down, incentive was lost, and these efforts fell by the wayside.

Today, we again face an energy crisis, only this time it is coupled with the enormous challenge of addressing the reality of global climate change. H.R. 2641 attempts to face these twin crises with over three billion dollars to address global climate change--researching its effects and working on technologies to slow it down--and investment in renewable energy programs that both reduce greenhouse gases and help our nation meet its energy needs.

The bill cuts funding for poorly thought-out plans for nuclear weapons recognizing that because of the enormous cost and the importance to our national security they require smart strategies not blank checks. Instead it works to keep Americans safe with a 75 percent increase in funding for nuclear nonproliferation efforts. It also funds the Army Corps of Engineers, strengthening our Nation's navigation infrastructure and improving flood control programs.

Before I highlight some of the more attractive provisions of this legislation, which by the way contains no earmarks, let me explain briefly why this energy and water legislation is so near and dear to the people I represent in the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas.

In the past 2 years, Houston, the center of my district, has experienced some of the most devastating acts of nature in its history.

Six years ago this month, in June 2001, Tropical Storm Allison hit southeast Texas. Until Hurricane Katrina, this storm would become the costliest tropical storm in United States history. Flash flooding initiated quite rapidly during Houston's rush hour late Friday afternoon and on into the evening hours. Widespread street flooding was the initial threat, but the high rainfall amounts forced almost all the major Houston area bayou systems into severe flooding, with some to record levels. All major freeways in the Houston area were severely flooded in at least one location during this event. During this single event alone, rainfall in Harris County ranged from just 2 inches in the extreme west to in excess of 20 inches over Green's Bayou in the east. Countywide, the average rainfall was 8 inches with over two-thirds of the county receiving over 10 inches.

The total damage across southeast Texas approached $5 billion, $4.88 billion in Harris County alone. Twenty-two deaths were caused by Allison, with each of these fatalities occurring in Harris County. At this time, thunderstorms began to train and merge across the Houston metro area, and the system evolved into a powerful complex right over the most populated portion of our CWA that evening. This complex progressed south and east into the early morning hours of Saturday, June 9. Very heavy rainfall was observed for up to 10 hours in some locations, and rainfall rates of 4 inches or more per hour were observed throughout the night. A station in northeast Houston recorded over 26 inches of rain in almost 10 hours.

In response, the Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project was launched. TSARP is a joint study effort by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and the Harris County Flood Control District, the District. The purpose of the TSARP project is to develop technical products that will assist the local community in recovery from the devastating flooding, and provide the community with a greater understanding of flooding and flood risks. The end product of the study is new flood insurance rate maps.

TSARP mission statement is: to assist residents of Harris County in recovery from Tropical Storm Allison and minimize damages from future floods by investigating the flood event and by developing current, accurate, and timely flood hazard information.

TSARP uses state-of-the-art technology. TSARP has yielded many products that will help us better understand our flood risk. These products will assist citizens in making important decisions, and will assist public agencies in infrastructure planning. The hoped for end result of TSARP is a more informed and disaster resistant community and one that is better prepared.

Purchasing flood insurance before June 18 allowed people to ``grandfather'' their existing floodplain status and pay lower premiums for flood insurance. Once the maps became official on June 18 residents and business owners whose properties are categorized in higher-risk flood zones on the new maps may pay higher rates.

According to FEMA, a ``Regulatory Floodway'' means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Communities must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood elevations. For streams and other watercourses where FEMA has provided Base Flood Elevations, BFEs, but no floodway has been designated, the community must review floodplain development on a case-by-case basis to ensure that increases in water surface elevations do not occur, or identify the need to adopt a floodway if adequate information is available.

FEMA regulations say ``Communities must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood elevations.'' The city of Houston interprets that as no development within the floodway. This is not necessarily correct. Construction can take place but it cannot obstruct the water. Elevating the structure gets the same effect but the city denies this as they said debris may collect under the structure. They will only allow a remodeling permit if the improvements do not exceed 50 percent of the structures value.

There is one neighborhood along White Oak Bayou that is greatly affected. The homes are of higher value than most of the district. Alternatives to resolve their issue include widening the bayou or diverting floodwater.

The Harris County Flood District is now investigating these alternatives. Otherwise the only solution would be a change in the city's ordinance allowing construction in the floodway.

I am looking forward to working with colleagues on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee to explore ways and means of resolving this problem so that Houstonians will not be forced out of their homes and unable to afford flood insurance.

Mr. Chairman, let me provide this partial listing of some of the many good provisions in this legislation. First, H.R. 2641 will improve U.S. waterways and flood protection by increasing funding for the Army Corps of Engineers by $713.4 million above the President's request to address a $1 billion backlog of operations and needed maintenance. This backlog needs to be addressed to sustain the coastal and inland navigation infrastructure critical to the U.S. economy, and the gaps in flood protection highlighted in Hurricane Katrina.

Second, the legislation will help reduce dependence on foreign oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy and energy efficiency programs are funded at $1.9 billion--a 50 percent increase in energy efficiency and renewable energy above the President's request for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. This is in addition to the additional $300 million added in the FY 2007 joint resolution. In contrast, the President's FY 2008 request for renewable energy and energy efficiency research is the same as it was in 2001 in real terms.

Funding for research and development of alternative fuels such as corn based and cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel is increased by 40 percent above the President's request. Solar Energy demonstration projects receive a 34 percent increase above the President's request. There is also $22 million to research new ways of generating power from water flow, and $44.3 million for geothermal energy,

neither of which were funded in the President's request. This is on top of the $95 million for upgrades to existing hydropower dams funded under the Army Corps.

I could go on and on. This thoughtful legislation provides funding to invest in new vehicle technology; energy efficient buildings; weatherization; carbon capture and sequestration; and climate change science. And it cuts wasteful spending as well.

For example, H.R. 2641 directs the Energy Department to develop a concrete plan to improve its contract management. The Energy Department has been on the GAO list of programs that are at high-risk for waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement for 17 years in a row.

The bill also cuts Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, funding by $285 million below the President's request and $47.5 million below 2007 for this initiative to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and burn long- lived radioactive materials. There are concerns that this project is unsafe, will cost tens of billions of dollars, and could make it far easier for terrorists to obtain plutonium to make nuclear weapons.

The bill also secures substantial savings by cutting wasteful and unnecessary nuclear weapons programs by $5.9 billion, $632 million below the President's request and $396 million below 2007. It cuts 37 specific weapons program accounts, including the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. The existing stockpile will continue to provide the Nation's nuclear deterrent for the next two decades, and certainly until the President develops a strategic nuclear weapons plan to transform the nuclear weapons complex away from its expensive cold war configuration to a more affordable, sustainable structure.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2641 and urge my colleagues to join me. I thank Chairman Visclosky for his fine work in bringing this exceptional legislation to the House floor where it should receive an overwhelmingly favorable vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I was happy to yield to the gentleman, and I want to thank him for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage the House to adopt this amendment.

Right now on the heels of our Democrat colleagues enacting the single largest increase in history, we should leave no stone unturned in trying to find more ways that we can help the poor beleaguered taxpayer, who actually pays for all of these programs.

Now, I have no doubt that there are many good things in this legislation, and I know we in Congress are only limited by our imagination on how we can spend the taxpayers' money.

Already, just with the programs that are already on the books with the Federal Government before people create new programs, we're on a collision course. We're on a collision course to either, one, have taxes doubled on the next generation, just to pay for government we have, or within one generation there is only going to be, for all intents and purposes, a Federal Government consisting of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Now, many people don't understand how the institution works, but already

so much of the Federal spending is on automatic pilot, so-called entitlement spending. This is actually one of the few opportunities that Members have to come to the floor of the House and actually try to save taxpayers' money.

Now, we know that the President has issued a veto threat, and there is a $23 billion savings that he's trying to achieve.

For many of us, we believe the President is trying to spend too much money. But the President is the President, and the President is the one who has the veto pen.

If we would adopt the gentleman's amendment, the gentleman from Georgia, we would at least take one small step towards the pathway of saving that $23 billion and maybe, maybe take one small step towards saving the next generation from that nasty fiscal fork in the road to where either, one, they are going to have their taxes doubled, right on the heels, again, of the single largest tax increase in American history that the Democrats have brought to us, or we are going to see a Federal Government consisting of little more than Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

What's ironic about this, Mr. Chairman, is if we don't start taking steps to save money today, and this amendment would save $30 million, if we don't start taking these steps today, tomorrow there might not be an Energy and Water appropriations bill. All the money would go somewhere else, and we continue as an institution to kick the can down the road.

Now, some in this body say fiscal responsibility simply means balancing the budget no matter what the cost. Well, for those who are going to have to have their taxes doubled in the next generation, they may differ with that assessment of what fiscal responsibility is.

Again, as the gentleman from Georgia has said, the Corps already has a large background of ongoing construction work. We know that; all Members know that. By limiting the Corps investigations, this amendment would help ensure that current Corps projects are completed.

Again, it's one very, very small step; but we cannot send this country again under Democrat leadership into some kind of tax-and-spend economic death spiral. We have to take every step possible to save the American people from, number one, the single largest tax increase in American history that threatens to impose over a 5-year period up to $3,000 of taxes per family. We have to save them from that. Then we have to save them from the other spending.

So this is a very modest amendment that would put us on a pathway to ensure that the President doesn't veto this bill and that we achieve some level of fiscal responsibility.

I urge the House to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership and trying to bring some level of fiscal sanity and fiscal accountability back to this body.

And I'm not unsympathetic to what I just heard our ranking member say. But I guess I get somewhat frustrated when I see spending bill after spending bill after spending bill, and I see the largest single tax increase in American history enacted by the new majority.

I see absolutely no effort on the part of the new majority to do anything to rein in out-of-control entitlement spending. Unfortunately, there are few opportunities to try to save the poor, beleaguered, American taxpayer some of his funds.

And again, I'm not sure that this bill is being shortchanged. It does exceed the President's request. It does provide funding above last year, in this case, increasing funding by roughly twice the rate of inflation.

There are many American families who don't have the luxury of seeing their incomes go up by twice the rate of inflation. Why are we expecting families to do with less so that government can do with more?

And again, I'm not unsympathetic to what the ranking member had to say. But there are so few opportunities.

And I understand good things can be done with these funds. But occasionally, Mr. Chairman, we have to stop and we have to take a look at where this funding is coming from. And I talk about the poor, beleaguered, American taxpayer who, if the Democrats have their way and the largest single tax increase in American history is allowed to be imposed upon the American people, will see their taxes go up by roughly $3,000 a year.

And I hear from some of those taxpayers from around the country. I heard from Debbie in Lake Zurich, Illinois. She writes, ``I cannot survive a $3,000 tax hike. I am a single, 53-year old woman living in Lake Zurich who is drowning in taxes. Because of taxes I've been forced to put my house on the market. Any more tax increases will create a huge financial burden.''

I heard from Rose in Turnersville, New Jersey. ``As an older adult still in the work force, I'm living paycheck to paycheck. Between property taxes and all the other taxes I pay, I will soon

give up my home. Just affording gas to get to work in my car is now a trial. Please keep the tax cuts we already have.''

As we talk about things we're going to do to safeguard people's homes, how ironic it is, with the largest tax increase in history we're going to spend the money and help take their homes away.

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

Again I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia for his amendment in this series of amendments, which, as I understand it, would bring the funding to the President's level, which, in most cases for many of us, is still too much.

As I stated earlier in the debate, Mr. Chairman, I am still concerned that although clearly good cases are made for how these funds can be used, I look at the larger picture. We still have a bill before us that is growing this part of government at over twice the rate of inflation. Again, we are asking American families to somehow do more with less, and sometimes you wonder if government isn't doing less with more.

This is on top of the pressure that has been put on the family budget by the new Democrat majority's enacting the largest single tax increase in American history in their budget. This is on top of the Democrat majority that is trying to increase what we call nondefense discretionary spending by $23 billion above the level of last year. This is in addition to the $6 billion, Mr. Chairman, that they added to the omnibus spending bill at the first of the Congress and the $17 billion in nonemergency spending that they tried to put into the emergency supplemental to support our troops that somehow we all know ended up with funding for peanuts and spinach and many other items that many Americans would consider being part of a pork-barrel spending effort.

So, again, I would have more sympathy with those who oppose the bill if I saw any indication whatsoever that the new Democrat majority was trying to save the family budget from the Federal budget. And, instead, I see this explosion of spending, and I haven't even included what the gentleman from Georgia aptly observed, that we hadn't even completed 6 months of the year but already the new Democrat majority, on top of all the old spending, has now authorized over the next 5-year budget window an additional $105 billion of new spending. And you wonder where does it all end? Where does it all end?

I said earlier that I wish we could be debating on this floor opportunities to actually reform entitlement spending. We are dealing with a smaller portion of the Federal budget now, but we know that the longest journey starts with the first step. And, Mr. Chairman, we need to observe, and don't take my word for it, about what is going to happen to the American family and the American economy if we don't take some small steps to try to reduce the rate of growth of government.

Let's listen to our Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, who was quoted in a House Budget Committee. Without ``early and meaningful action'' to address the growth in entitlement spending, ``the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.''

Let's listen to the Comptroller General, our chief fiduciary officer in the United States. He said, ``The rising costs of government entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.'' Instead, this body kicks the can down the road.

And now we have a bill before us which, although it does many worthy things, is increasing the rate of spending of this part of government twice the rate of inflation; again, taking money away from American families after the single largest tax increase in history, threatening to double taxes on their children.

And so, we've had three amendments here in a row that would take incredibly modest steps to try to reduce the rate of growth of government. You don't even have to cut government, you just have to reduce the rate of growth to bring some fiscal sanity from this new spending and tax economic debt spiral that the Democrats seem to want to foist us into.

So, I would urge the House to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia. I wish we could do more, but it is a modest start on a very, very long journey.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I almost feel like rather than offering an amendment that I need to ask everybody to stand up and we'll hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but I guess it's easy and people are in a good mood and very agreeable when you're talking about spending other people's money.

And in this case, we're talking about spending taxpayers' hard-earned dollars where we have very little control over how hard it is for them to make their money, but we spend it pretty easily.

This amendment takes $30 million out of the Corps of Engineers' investigation budget. It brings it down to the spending level that the President has requested in his budget request.

The Energy and Water appropriations bill is $1.1 billion over the President's request, and this amendment would reduce the funding for the investigation account under the Corps of Engineers by the $30 million, bringing it back down to the President's original request.

The investigations and construction funding is used to collect and study the basic information pertaining to local water projects such as flood and storm damage reduction. The funding is also used to restudy projects already authorized by Congress which can lead to additional Federal spending on local projects that have already received Federal funds.

Let me say that on some of these projects that we've heard about today from the delays, and Ranking Member Hobson mentioned the MOX project which has been delayed for a number of years, probably that's not only due to funding but in these additional restudies that the Corps of Engineers has had to do on the project. The Corps of Engineers has greatly expanded over the last decade.

In addition, according to the administration, the Corps already has a large backlog of ongoing construction work, and the President's budget limits funding for the study and design of additional projects. So, in other words, by limiting new Corps investigations, this amendment would ensure that the current Corps projects move forward at a pace to bring them to completion without further delays.

So far there has been at least a $105.5 billion in new Federal spending over the next 5 years that has been authorized by this new leadership, the democratically controlled Congress this year, in enacting the largest tax increase in American history, the Democrat budget allows for $23 billion in spending over the President's budget's request.

This amendment is designed to save the taxpayers $30 million, only a small amount, just a small dent, in the unnecessary increase in Federal spending this year, and this again is fueled by the largest tax increase in the history of this country.

So, Mr. Chairman, I ask that all Members support this amendment. It is a small dent in the large increase in Federal spending.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment on the chairman's comment about rules change every day. They do change every day, but when someone has based a project on the prior rules and regulations of the Corps, and they have based their whole project, and proceeded with that project, when the rules change and they come back to reinvestigate, that's no way to do business.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would reduce the amount by $481,186,000. It's in the area of construction.

Last year, $2.37 billion was spent. The President requested $1.5 billion, and the proposed budget is a little over $2 billion.

Mr. Chairman, we have talked about the overspending, and we have just heard about the 404 permitting process and the regulatory process. Let me say that the Corps of Engineers is a great organization. They do a wonderful job.

The problem is that they have a general or colonel, depending on what area of the country it is, that rotates in or out, and what we are left with are life-long bureaucrats that control the Corps of Engineers. I appreciate listening to the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member and others as they have promised to get into speeding up the process and going through these regulations and making sure that these projects that are so important to our citizens move along at a pace and not impaired by just red tape and bureaucracy.

This construction area is somewhere that we have spent a lot of dollars.

The President came back, and as we mentioned in the last amendment that we had, and said, look, we have got such a backlog of projects already, why don't we make sure and get those out of the way before we go on to spending more money.

Let me say this, even though we may look at this as a construction, when you put more money into these agencies, it does nothing but build a bureaucracy and broaden the red tape that our citizens have to go through to deal with these agencies.

As I made the last comment on the last amendment, there has been at least $105 billion in new Federal spending over the next 5 years that has been authorized, and will be authorized by this new Democratic Congress, the leadership of this House. In enacting the largest tax increase in American history, this Democratic budget will allow for $23 billion in spending over what the President's budget request was.

We, as a party, as a former majority party, the Republican Party, understood that people got tired of their government growing at a rate so much faster than the population of this country and the excessive spending that we did. It's time for us to try to get back the confidence of the American people, not just Republicans, or the minority party, but Congress in general. The ratings of this Congress is at a record low, record low.

The majority seems to think that they've heard the voice last November of the American people. Well, I hope that they're listening to the voice now because their rating is even lower than what the Republican rating was last November.

But this amendment is designed to save the taxpayers about $480 million, and although, there again, the last amendment was just for $30 million, this one's for $481 million, it's just a small dent in the amount of money that we're spending here. But I think it is a small indication to the people of this country that we're willing to be wise stewards of their money.

So I ask all of the Members here today if they would support this amendment to reduce the construction in the Corps of Engineers by $481 million.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out to the ranking member that he's exactly right. And if you look at the bill, I think it will talk about that specific amounts of this money has been itemized to go to section 107 of the River Harbor Act of 1960; $45 million to go to the Flood Control Act of 1948; $10 million to go to the Flood Control Act of 1946; $25 million to go exclusively for projects of the Water Resource Development Act of 1986; $25 million for the Water Resource Act of 1996. This is all because we have continued to put money into construction, and I hope that what the ranking member was saying is that there's no new projects in here. And maybe this is to finish up some of the projects. Maybe we can go back and finish some of the projects of the 1946 act or the 1986 act.

I'm glad to hear that from the ranking member.

But let's have a start. Let's prioritize. Let's tell the Corps with this amendment that we're going to cut this money, and that we need to see a prioritization schedule from them on how we're going to spend it; that we're going to be responsible for taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it cuts $18 million from the $278 million authorized under this bill. It is a small cut. Although $278 million is already authorized in current law, it is what the President's request was; and even though we have looked at other amendments and, hopefully, the whole House will see to do some cuts, this appropriations bill is $1.1 billion over the President's request. So this $18 million simply brings back the President's request for the Mississippi River and Tributaries program.

The Mississippi River and Tributaries last year was $396.6 million in 2007. There has been plenty of money there, I think, to look at these harbors, look at the flood damage, look at the things that should be done there; and this is a mild decrease of the $18 million.

But let me again reiterate, as I did on the previous two amendments, that this is in addition to $105 billion in new Federal spending over the next 5 years that has been authorized by the new leadership in this House. It has been done by enacting the largest tax increase in American history. And this budget that we are looking at for 2008 allows $23 billion in new spending that will be funded by the largest tax increase in American history. This amendment, while being only $18 million, is a small dent. I can't believe that I have been in Congress long enough to say ``only $18 million,'' because that is more money than most American families will see in one lifetime or two lifetimes. It is just a small dent in this year's budget. And, Mr. Chairman, I hope that all Members will see their way to cut this amount of money out of this particular appropriations bill.