Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5427, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2007

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5427, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (House of Representatives - May 23, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I think in general, within the spectacularly inadequate allocation provided the subcommittee, that Mr. Hobson and Mr. Visclosky have done a very credible job on this bill, and I especially appreciate the way Mr. Hobson has approached this bill on a bipartisan basis.

Having said that, I would hope that Members would vote against the previous question on the rule. As Mr. Visclosky pointed out, for the 25 years since Jimmy Carter left office, this country has been in a listless drift as far as energy policy is concerned. Energy conservation, energy research programs, have been funded at woefully low levels in comparison to where they were during the high point of Jimmy Carter's presidency.

The problem is that, after Carter left office, his successors, especially Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, systematically shrank those budgets in real terms, and so today, we are paying the price in terms of scarce energy and high energy prices.

We have some choices to make. The Congress has already determined this year, the majority party has, that it is important this year to provide $40 billion in supersized tax cuts to people who make over $1 million a year.

In contrast, Mr. Visclosky would offer an amendment which would scale back the size of those tax cuts by 2 1/2 percent and use that money instead to make greater investments totaling $1 billion more than the bill contains for flood control projects and especially for energy conservation and energy development programs.

If we had done that over the past 25 years, if we had simply kept up with what Jimmy Carter had asked us to do while he was President, we would be in a far more secure place as a Nation tonight and we would have a far more stable pricing system for energy, and we would be much further along the way toward protecting Mother Earth from the ravages of global warming.

So I would hope that the House would vote against the previous question so that we would have an opportunity to resurrect the Visclosky amendment. I do believe that it is important to ask the question: What is more valuable to the country's future, stronger levees in our communities, stronger flood control projects, an energy policy that puts us ahead of the curve rather than at the mercy of OPEC, or an even easier Easy Street for the most well-off people in this society?

I think the choice is obvious.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/