[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 81 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4850-H4854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4060, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 478 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 478
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4060) making appropriations for energy and
water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1999, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. Points of order against
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 7
of rule XXI are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for
[[Page H4851]]
amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2,
5(b), or 6 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of
the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. The chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during
further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules,
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 478 makes in order H.R. 4060, the
fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill,
under a completely open rule, which the Committee on Rules reported by
voice vote.
As is customary, the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate,
equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
The rule waives clause 7 of rule XXI, which requires printed hearings
and reports to be available 3 days prior to consideration of an
appropriations bill. Waiving this rule facilitates consideration of
this noncontroversial bill, which the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
reported by voice vote.
The rule also waives clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits
legislating on an appropriations bill. The Committee on Rules conferred
with the authorizers and determined there was no opposition to this
waiver.
Similarly, the Committee on Ways and Means has no problem with
waiving clause 5(b) of rule XXI, which addresses tax and tariff
provisions under that committee's jurisdiction. The rule also waives
clause 6 of rule XXI, which prohibits reappropriations in a general
appropriations bill.
To ensure an orderly amendment process, the rule allows the Chair to
accord priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their
amendments in the Congressional Record. Further, the Chair may postpone
and reduce votes to 5 minutes, as long as the first vote in any series
is a 15-minute vote.
Finally, the rule provides for the customary motion to recommit, with
or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I was shocked to learn that
the President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposal would cut spending for
the construction of new levees, flood walls, and other protective water
infrastructure by almost 50 percent.
In fact, the recommended funding levels for these projects, managed
by the Army Corps of Engineers, would be the lowest in real dollars in
the history of the civil works program.
How quickly the administration forgets. It was only 5 years ago that
the Midwest was ravaged by floods which caused millions of dollars in
damage and waged a devastating human emotional toll on those citizens
who lost their homes, businesses, and communities to ever-rising flood
waters.
Even more recently, the State of California has battled unrelenting
floods that left the citizens searching for the means to rebuild their
communities.
It is unclear where the next flood tragedy will appear. But
eviscerating the construction budget of the Corps of Engineers only
ensures that the damage will be more widespread.
Our recent past should convince us that investing in a defense system
to prevent flood damage is far preferable to spending the money on
cleanup after lives have been destroyed.
My constituents in central Ohio would be directly affected by the
short-sightedness of the administration's budget. The West Columbus
floodwall is currently being built to protect the homes and businesses
along our Scioto River from catastrophic floods.
In 1913, 1937, and 1959, the Scioto overflowed its banks, causing
millions of dollars' worth of damage to both residential and commercial
property. Without floodwall protection, 17,000 residents continue to be
placed at risk of life, injury and personal hardship. And that is only
my story.
Construction of the West Columbus floodwall has been on track since
it began in 1993. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identified a need
for $16 billion in the next fiscal year to keep the project on schedule
toward completion. Yet, the President slashed the Corps' budget.
I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade),
the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), the
ranking member, and the rest of my colleagues on the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water for crafting a very fiscally
responsible bill that restores these devastating cuts proposed in the
President's budget, while at the same time keeping spending below the
fiscal year 1998 level.
As my colleagues know, the energy and water bill provides funding for
much more than flood protection. This legislation funds the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Department of Energy, the Appalachian Regional
Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In their bill, the subcommittee was able to increase spending on
programs, such as the solar and renewable programs, science programs,
and the atomic energy defense activities.
The bill also includes important funding for defense environmental
management and cleanup of hazardous and radioactive materials. These
dollars will clean up sites throughout the country which were
contaminated during the production of nuclear weapons.
Additionally, provisions of the bill seek to increase the efficiency
of the Department of Energy through contract competition and
reevaluation of the Department's organizational structure.
Mr. Speaker, the final product of the work of the subcommittee is
$78.7 million below fiscal year 1998, keeping us on track to a balanced
budget and a smaller, smarter government.
My colleagues in the Committee on Rules, both Democrat and
Republican, had nothing but praise for the efforts of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Fazio) to produce a balanced, bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair and open rule,
which will provide for a thorough debate of spending priorities.
Further, I urge my colleagues to support the subcommittee's fine work
by voting yes on this responsible energy and water appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my colleague my dear friend the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) for yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and I urge my colleagues
to support the Energy and Water Appropriations bills. I must say,
though, Mr. Speaker, there is something curious in the bill.
Last year, my good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon),
the chairman, talked about the Armey protocol in which any provision
objected by the authorizing committee members will be exposed to a
point of order. But this year, the very first year it comes up, my
Republican colleagues have decided to abandon the principles of the
Armey protocol in terms of this rule.
Specifically, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the ranking member and the
chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the authorizing committee, wrote
a letter objecting to the legislative language in
[[Page H4852]]
this bill that falls within their jurisdiction. The request was
completely ignored by the Republicans on the Committee on Rules,
breaking faith with their own leadership protocol.
In terms of the bill, though, I want to congratulate my colleagues
the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) for another job very well done. They and
their colleagues have worked hard and long to give us a bill that meets
most of our energy and water infrastructure needs, and for that we owe
them a great debt of gratitude.
This appropriations bill will provide $3.9 billion dollars for the
Army Corps of Engineers, which is above President Clinton's request but
still less than we appropriated last year. That means that the level of
funding is somewhere near what is required to fund worthy projects
which are authorized and are ready for construction.
The bill also contains funding for the Department of Energy, which is
$305 million more than last year but $867 million less than the
President requested.
Unfortunately, we are just now beginning to feel the restraints of
the Balanced Budget Agreement which was enacted only last year, and
that means that many deserving energy initiatives could not be as fully
funded as we had hoped.
For example, the Energy Department should be spending some of their
time developing clean, non-greenhouse gas power sources. But the freeze
this bill imposes on the solar and renewable energy program will
seriously undermine that effort.
The bill also denies the administration's request for an additional
$110 million for research and development related to global climate
changes.
Mr. Speaker, this is the energy we need to develop in order to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and lower people's energy costs.
Mr. Speaker, the bill also makes some potentially dangerous cuts in
the funding to clean up nuclear waste. And, Mr. Speaker, if the Energy
Department does not clean up nuclear waste, who will?
{time} 1030
Finally, the bill increases funding for basic science research and
development. We are pleased that the committee was able to provide some
increase over the President's budget request for fusion energy
programs.
There were some really difficult choices for the Committee on
Appropriations this year, mainly due to the strict limits in the
balanced budget agreement. This means that any extra funding given to
one program has to come out at the expense of other very important
programs.
But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is coming to the floor with an open rule,
and any Member that has an amendment that conforms to House rules can
present it.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in contrast to the last rule, I fully support
this rule, and I want to explain why and explain the difference.
We heard speakers on the previous rule suggest that if we voted that
rule down, that somehow we in the Democratic minority would be
responsible for holding up the appropriations process. I would simply
make the point to my friends on the majority side of the aisle, you are
in the majority, you have the votes to pass any provision you want and
any rule you want on this House floor, and you have demonstrated that
many times. But I would just simply say this. Do not ask us to support
a rule on the companion bill that was just before us simply because you
cannot get your act together on passing the basic budget in the first
place. When that budget was before this House, which changed the
agreement that you had reached with the President of the United States
last year to establish a very different trend line for appropriations
than was the case in that bipartisan budget agreement, we warned you at
that time that the budget resolution that you were passing would never
pass your own Republican Members in the other body, in the Senate. You
ignored that warning, and now you are finding out that that is true.
You are finding out that your own Republican colleagues in the Senate
believe that the budget that you passed was extreme, and, in fact, the
rules preclude me from naming other Senators but the Senator who is
chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate, a Republican, said as
much.
I would simply ask, why did we go through the charade of passing that
budget in the first place if you yourselves did not intend to abide by
it? That is my question today.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that what you have done in the
previous rule in contrast to this one, in the previous rule what you
did was bring to the floor a stealth provision which calls for the
amending of the budget resolution which you passed with such fanfare
just 2 weeks ago. I find that procedure quaint but not surprising,
because it simply demonstrates what everyone knew but did not admit
when that bill was before us, that that budget was essentially a
political document to allow the majority party to pretend that it had
room in the budget for a tax cut when in fact it is not able to pass
the budget resolution which would make that tax cut possible.
I will simply say, I will vote for the rule on this bill, because
this rule does not contain that gimmick. The previous rule simply asked
every member of our party and every member of yours to ignore the very
rules which you imposed on this House just 10 days ago. Maybe you can
explain that in your caucus. I would find it very difficult to explain
in ours.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
(Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, this is a troubling time for me. We were
before the Committee on Rules on Military Construction, and I think it
is a very good bill that we put together with limited funds. But there
is an old saying that goes, ``Oh what a tangled web we weave when first
we practice to deceive.''
If I might just remind Members the process that went on just a week
ago. We had on this floor a budget. We had the Kasich budget; we had
the Republican substitute, which did not pass; we had a so-called Blue
Dog budget that tracked very closely to what the budget was in the
other body that had the votes to pass, but it was not made in order by
the Committee on Rules.
Members who have been here for quite some time know that the
Committee on Rules is the Speaker's committee. The Speaker decides, and
he can call the shots on what comes out of the Committee on Rules. They
did not see fit to put in place a budget that could have passed here
and would have gone a long way to implement the balanced budget that we
have. We do not want to put that in order because it will pass.
Then we talk about campaign reform for all these years. We come and
they offer a rule on campaign financing, and they put all of these
amendments in order, many of them nongermane, and then they have an
amendment that says if something is declared unconstitutional, the
whole bill goes down the tubes, a procedure that would absolutely do
away with any campaign reform.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and I worked very hard on
this military construction bill. It is regrettable that we come down to
a situation where we have to have this debate on the rule. But this is
just the beginning. There are other appropriations bills that are going
to come to this House, and everybody put out press releases that voted
for the balanced budget, especially on the Republican side, and the
Speaker said not 3 days ago, we balanced the budget, we did all these
things, but what you have done, you have done it with a phony vehicle.
You have done it with a phony budget.
This is just the beginning of what is going to happen on these
appropriations bills. Either you are going to bust the caps or you are
going to waive points of order and you are going to go
[[Page H4853]]
use emergency amendments, you are going to use fake emergencies to get
around the Committee on the Budget. The money is still going to be
there, you are going to spend the money, but it is just not going to
show up. It is going to show up without offsets and it is going to blow
the balanced budget.
This is troubling to me. The gentleman from Florida, bless his heart,
he is very emotional. We want to pass Military Construction. I was
chairman for over 10 years. The things that he mentioned are not even
in the military construction budget. This is a scare tactic.
Mr. Speaker, Military Construction is a good bill. This is a good
bill. This does not have the emergency moneys in this one that gets
around, but Defense does. Defense has a tremendous amount of money, and
I support the defense budget. But when we get to these things, when we
get all of these appropriations bills and all the emergencies are
counted in, guess what? The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) is
exactly right when he was contesting what we were doing in
appropriations. It was not popular, but he was exactly right, because
you voted for that budget and you voted for it with cuts that were
unspecified, and you have programs that nobody wanted to talk about
that were unspecified cuts. It was a phony budget that was passed then,
and it got no better since it has been passed. I do not like to
question rules, but to me this is something that is just going to get
worse and worse and worse.
Like I said years ago, this budget is so ugly, like the lady that had
the kid that was so ugly they had to get a pork chop around its neck to
get the dogs to play with it. This budget, you could not tie enough
around its neck to get anybody to play with it. It is a terrible thing
for this body to be considering this, because we are going to have to
do a lot of this work over again because this budget is phony and these
points are going to be raised on other appropriations bills, and
rightfully so.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the last two speakers were referring to the rules debate
immediately preceding this, and to some other extraneous matters. This
Member was not present for that very spirited debate. As I understand
it, it was a procedural attempt to keep the legislative ball rolling
and the appropriations process on track. But, nonetheless, this rule is
not objectionable. I am gratified to hear the gentlemen approve of this
rule. After all, it is wide open, and it is as fair as it could be made
fair.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, all I want to say, the gentlewoman did not
miss a thing by not being here when the other rule was considered.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for consideration of H.R.
4060, the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I
first want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) for their hard work on this
important legislation. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards) for the help he has provided my office on this bill. I am
especially pleased by the support this legislation provides for
addressing the chronic flooding problems of Harris County, Texas. In
1994 southeast Texas suffered some of the worst flooding our area had
ever seen. This and more recent floods are a clear reminder that our
lives, our infrastructure and our economy depend on sound watershed
management. I am pleased that H.R. 4060 includes vital funding for
several flood control projects in the Houston area, including Brays,
Sims, and Hunting and White Oak bayous.
I am most grateful for the committee's decision to fully fund the
Brays Bayou project at $6 million for fiscal year 1999. This flood
control project is necessary to improve flood protection for an
extensively developed urban area along the Brays in the southwest
Harris County. The project consists of three miles of channel
improvements, three flood detention basins and seven miles of stream
diversion and will provide a 25-year level of flood protection.
The administration's budget did not provide any request for this
funding so I appreciate the committee taking the action. I also
appreciate that the bill fully funds the ongoing project for Sims Bayou
at $18 million rather than the administration's request of $9 million.
This is critical to keep this project ongoing to help with the chronic
flooding in the area.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the legislation provides the
$60 million which was requested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
the dredging and deepening and widening of the Houston ship channel.
This is critically important. This is the second largest port in the
Nation, creating more than 200,000 jobs in our area. The administration
had only requested $5 million. This is necessary to get the Houston
port project on track and moving forward. This is both an economically
and fiscally sound project as well as environmentally sound where the
port has worked with the environmental community in the Houston area to
make the project sound and workable.
I appreciate the work of the chairman and the ranking member on this
bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio).
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule
for H.R. 4060, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for
the fiscal year 1999. Bipartisanship has long been the hallmark of this
committee, and I am very pleased to report that this spirit has
continued during consideration of this year's bill. It was particularly
challenging to draft this bill with a painfully low administration
request for the Corps of Engineers budget on one side, more than $800
million below what we appropriated just last year, and important, yet
expensive DOE-proposed initiatives on the other side.
Although we have improved our position somewhat with the budget
allocation, we have still not been able to make this bill whole by any
stretch of the imagination. The best that can be said is that we have
administered the pain as evenhandedly as possible.
If Members are wondering why the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
McDade) and I are retiring, it is because despite adding more than $700
million over the President's budget request to the water development
side of the bill, which is so important to our colleagues after two El
Nino winters, the bill is still $200 million below last year's level.
Consequently, the committee has had to make some tough decisions and
adopt some commonsense decision rules in the bill by not funding new
construction starts, not funding unauthorized projects and not funding
recreation projects unless they are tangential to a flood control or
navigation project.
Even so, there are many authorized construction projects in the
pipeline which do not receive funding. The operations and maintenance
account, dredging and upkeep of our harbors and navigable waterways, is
still funded more than $100 million below last year.
{time} 1045
These necessary cuts hit home across the country including the
important Calfed initiative in my home State of California, an
initiative supported by a large number of the California delegation on
a bipartisan basis that is $45 million below the 120 million that our
committee recommended just last year.
We are clearly feeling the effects of the balanced budget agreement
in our bill, and I suspect that, as a pattern, we will have to get used
to it for many years to come. Insufficient funding for meritorious
water development projects that are important to our Nation's economy
will be the watch word for many budget years in the future.
On the energy side of the equation we face similar budget
constraints. We had to balance new priorities like the Spallation
Neutron Source while sustaining numerous other DOE programs that are
essential to the Nation, and while I would like to see an increase in
the number for solar and renewable energy programs, I am pleased that
this account did not sustain any cuts given
[[Page H4854]]
the difficult environment in which the committee was forced to work.
I understand the reasoning behind the committee report's words of
caution to the administration pertaining to policy decisions and sound
science with regard to global climate change, but I would like to
reiterate that the energy efficiency programs funded in this bill are
programs that our Nation has been investing in for years, long before
the debate over global climate change occurred. I believe that any
debate relating to climate change in the Kyoto Protocol should be
conducted independently of this bill.
The committee was able to provide an increased diffusion energy
program above the administration's request. I am pleased the committee
has also provided generous increases in the basic science research and
development account and in areas such as high energy physics.
This bill continues to support the crucial effort of our Nation to
maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile through the National Ignition
Facility and the ASCI program. Because of the tight allocation, there
are shortfalls in some areas like the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, and I would like to be able
to address this and other shortfalls in conference, if it is at all
possible.
In short, I think that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade)
and our committee have done a good job in a tough year. Mr. McDade, who
cannot be with us today, I think is a strong advocate of all of the
demands that are placed on this bill by people looking to develop the
economies of their local regions and districts. He and I support the
open rule, but I believe this bill can withstand any amendments that
may be proposed on the floor just as it did last year.
So I ask for a yes vote on the rule and a yes vote on the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill in hopes that when we get to conference with
the other body we may be able to do more of the legitimate requests
that have been made of us that we have unfortunately been unable to
account for in this bill.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from
California, the ranking member, and I also appreciate his hard work,
that of the entire committee and that of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) for a very tough job under difficult
circumstances.
I have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________