[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.

                          ____________________