[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6598-H6600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4060, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4060) making appropriations for energy 
and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, 
and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to 
the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.


           Motion to Instruct Conferees Offered by Mr. Vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Vento moves that in resolving the differences between 
     the House and Senate, the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill H.R. 4060, be instructed to disagree with the 
     provision in Title IV of the Senate amendment, providing 
     funding for the Denali Commission, and the provision in Title 
     VI of the Senate amendment, the authorization for such 
     Commission.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Vento) will control 30 minutes and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. McDade) will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important motion that could save the American 
taxpayers $20 million in this fiscal year which is included in the 
Senate bill, unauthorized, and could save tens of millions of dollars 
in each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.
  The Senate provisions of the Energy and Water Development Bill 
include a small title, title VI, that goes under the innocuous title of 
Denali Commission. However, if one reads the title, it becomes clear 
that this Denali Commission is designed to be more than a small help 
for the isolated communities of Alaska. This commission is destined to 
become the new Alaska Department of Economic Development funded by the 
Federal Government and the Federal taxpayers.
  This commission is granted broad authority to develop a statewide 
comprehensive plan for economic and infrastructure development and, as 
I said, is given $20 million to approve project and grant proposals in 
fiscal year 1999. The bill goes on to authorize such sums as may be 
necessary for the following 4 years.
  It does not take much imagination, given the prominent role of Alaska 
in the Senate appropriation process, as to what is going to happen with 
regards to this in future years. Federal funding will be as much as the 
traffic will bear, fundamentally. While we would be handing over 
millions of dollars for economic development in Alaska, we are 
providing a pittance of Federal oversight or accountability.
  There are no guidelines or standards as to the grants that are 
provided. There is no qualification. There is no matching funds. The 
oversight, of course, by the GAO and the Inspector General will 
probably prove ample if something like this were ever put in place and 
point out in graphic detail all the mistakes and political deal that 
will have been made and the misappropriation and or waste of federal 
dollars.
  This Denali Commission is stacked and is dominated by Alaskans with a 
board composed of a representative from the Chamber of Commerce, the 
executive director of the Alaska Municipal League, the president of the 
University of Alaska, a representative of the governor and a single 
Federal representative, who would be subject to Senate confirmation, in 
essence a Senate veto over the one national voice.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the original intent of the 
legislative proposal was to help those Alaskans who lived in the bush 
regions, the rural parts of the State. Mr. Speaker, this is far afield 
of what was considered.
  The bill did not have any hearings in the House or Senate. It was 
inserted into the Senate appropriations bill. As a member of an 
authorizing committee, I would point out to my colleagues this is how 
bad law is developed. I would hope that we would instruct our conferees 
not to agree to this egregious provision, that we go back to the 
regular order, the regular process in terms of hearings in the sunlight 
of open hearing and debate on this issue; to pass the authorization, if 
there is a justification to pass it, through the House and the Senate 
and then provide for an appropriate commission and funding as justified 
and reasonable.
  I might say, too, that Alaska as a State seems to be doing quite well 
these days and has not been shortchanged with regards to resources of 
the Federal Government. In fact, it is pointed out that it is one of 
the leading States in terms of per capita investment by the Federal 
Government and has a surplus today of $25 billion due to its oil 
revenues, so much so that it will be making $1,400 rebates this year 
for each person without a sales tax in most parts of Alaska, without an 
income tax.
  I think that the State of Alaska, while having serious problems that 
we need to work on, and I have worked on many of them over the years, 
this is not the way to go, this is not the route to go to create an 
economic authority to pass out grants. I urge my colleagues to strongly 
support my motion to instruct conferees, not to accept these 
provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following two documents for the Record:

                                                     Taxpayers For


                                                 Common Sense,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 1998.
     Hon. Bruce Vento,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Vento: Taxpayers for Common Sense is 
     pleased to support your motion to instruct House conferees to 
     oppose authorization and funding for the Denali Commission 
     (Title VI) in the FY99 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. 
     We oppose Title VI for the following reasons:
       Process: A big new commission doesn't belong in a spending 
     bill. Even if such a commission were a nice idea (Taxpayers 
     for Common Sense doesn't think it is), it is totally 
     outrageous that the five pages of authorization language 
     creating this commission are stuck into an appropriations 
     bill.
       Cost: No ceiling. The language authorizes ``such sums as 
     may be necessary'' for the years 2000 through 2003. If this 
     commission is enacted, no doubt there will be huge pressure 
     to continue it after 2003. In short, Congress would be 
     establishing an open-ended program with no authorization 
     ceiling.
       Substance: No controls and poorly drafted. Many other 
     federal public works programs contain safeguards to make sure 
     the money goes to good use. But Title VI requires no local 
     cost sharing (as is required for Corps of Engineers water 
     projects), no targeting of benefits to communities of need, 
     and no criteria for judging priorities. There is nothing in 
     Title VI to prevent money from simply being spread around to 
     politically influential localities for low-priority projects 
     and people who don't need the benefits.
       Role: Should federal taxpayers pay for this? The commission 
     would use federal taxpayers' money to accomplish what are 
     clearly state projects addressing unique state concerns. 
     Congress should be eliminating programs like this, not 
     creating more of them.
       Waste: Half-baked commission unlikely to achieve goals. 
     With all of these failings, the commission is unlikely to 
     achieve its goals and may very well end up wasting taxpayer 
     money.
       When the House considers the motion to go to conference on 
     the FY99 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, Taxpayers for 
     Common Sense urges all Representatives to vote for your 
     motion to instruct on this issue. Please call me at (202) 
     546-8500 x102 if you have questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ralph DeGennaro,
     Executive Director
                                  ____


             [From the Anchorage Daily News, July 12, 1998]

             Permanent Fund; Record Dividend on Our Riches

       The Alaska Permanent Fund provided further proof of its 
     status as the state's most powerful economic engine on 
     Thursday with word that its value grew to about $25 billion 
     as of June 30, the end of the fiscal year.
       That's a staggering number. But a much smaller number is 
     the one that strikes home for most Alaskans--the estimated 
     $1,460 that each Alaskan will receive this fall for doing no 
     more than living here.
       That number is a guess, but Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. 
     spokesman Jim Kelly does promise a record check, meaning 
     something bigger than the $1,296 sent to each Alaskan in 
     1997.

[[Page H6599]]

       Call it $1,400. That means an Alaska family of four will 
     receive $5,600 this fall. That's money to use for everything 
     from appliances to cars to college savings to knocking down 
     debt. No other state in the union gives its people such a 
     direct, no-strings share of its revenue. What other state has 
     the means?
       No state income tax. In Anchorage, no sales tax. A yearly 
     check that's grown to four figures. A $25 billion fund that 
     provides more revenue to the state than oil does. Financial-
     crisis? Not even with oil at $12 a barrel. Other states would 
     love this crisis.
       Alaska has its share of problems and challenges, from Third 
     World sanitary conditions in some villages and troubled 
     fisheries to battles over subsistence rights and religious 
     convictions. But we're not broke. We're rich.
       That's a problem, too. We must decide what to do as a state 
     with the Permanent Fund's income. We must decide what to do 
     as families and individuals with our dividends.
       May we be cursed with such difficulties for a long time to 
     come.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleagues, they 
do not need to be told that the hour is late. I think we are trying to 
get as much as we can done before we break. This bill is a pending bill 
which passed this body, Mr. Speaker, by a vote of 404-4. All we are 
saying to our colleagues is do not fetter us as we go to conference. 
Give us the opportunity to continue to represent the House that will 
merit a vote like this as we come back.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope this will be roundly defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Resources.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time. I rise in support of his motion to instruct conferees to 
maintain the House position that he has offered.
  The House has passed a clean energy and water bill without 
controversy over antienvironmental legislative riders which have bogged 
down Interior and other appropriations bills. The Vento motion to 
instruct would put the House on record in opposition to a $20 million 
Alaska grant program which has been included as a rider in the Senate 
bill.
  It is my understanding that the original intent of authorizing these 
funds was for the purpose of improving sanitation, drinking water and 
other basic needs of remote native villages in Alaska. Let me clearly 
state that I recognize the serious problems in rural Alaska and support 
responsible congressional efforts to address them.
  But the Senate rider, as presently drafted, is not limited to using 
Federal funds to meet priority needs of native Alaskans. Instead, the 
Senate would empower a five-person commission to develop a statewide, 
comprehensive plan for economic and infrastructure development. No 
native Alaskan nor rural Alaskan is directly appointed to the 
commission. Rather, the Chamber of Commerce, the Alaskan Municipal 
League, the university president, all of which are urban dominated, are 
given a vote in distributing $20 million in federally funded grants 
with no strings attached.
  Let us not allow ourselves to be fooled here. This is a blank check 
to use Federal funds to promote road building, resource extraction and 
other favorite causes of development proponents in Alaska. This is a 
recipe for federally funded antienvironmental mischief.
  The Senate would spend $20 million in Federal funds for Alaska 
development grants in 1999 and authorizes unlimited amounts for the 
next 4 years. So the next 4 years we would see a repeated habit of the 
Senate adding money for this purpose as the appropriations bills come 
from the Senate.
  As the gentleman who has offered this motion points out, we have not 
been stingy with Alaska. In 1996, they insisted upon $110 million in 
emergency economic disaster relief in southeast Alaska communities 
impacted by the closure of two pulp mills because of poor markets. Some 
of that money was used to hire lobbyists to come down here and ask for 
more money. I think what we have seen here, that is $110 million, now 
there is $20 million for this study. Then there is open-ended 
appropriations for the next 4 years. I do not think that the taxpayers 
of this country can afford to do business this way. I do not think that 
we can ask for another $20 million. If this was important, then why did 
they not use some of the $110 million we gave them 2 years ago to do 
economic and infrastructure studies?
  I would also point out very clearly, as the gentleman who offered 
this motion has pointed out, and, that is, Alaska has a permanent fund 
of $23 billion. That $23 billion fund is supposed to be there in 
perpetuity for the future of Alaska and its residents. I have no 
problem with that. But maybe Alaska and its residents concerned about 
their economic development in the future could find it in their heart 
to spend $20 million of their $23 billion for the purposes of ensuring 
the kind of infrastructure and development that they think they need to 
go into the future.
  This is a permanent fund that is currently spinning off $1,300 for 
every man, woman and child who is a resident of the State of Alaska. 
That is fine. That is what they decided to do with the fund. But 
because they decided to have the fund make those expenditures does not 
mean that the Federal Government and all of the rest of the taxpayers 
of this country need to come in and fill behind those decisions with 
$20 million in a study that is very loosely constructed and without 
limitations as to the future appropriations for it. I think it is fair 
to ask the State legislature to step up to the plate and contribute to 
addressing the problems of rural Alaska, but the Senate rider does not 
even require matching funds from the State of Alaska.
  In the State of California, we have huge infrastructure problems, we 
have huge problems trying to meet our water needs, our transportation 
needs, our airport needs, all the things that so many of us in other 
States experience. But we are not getting $20 million from the Federal 
Government to study that and we are not getting 4 years of unlimited 
appropriations to study that in the future.
  Clearly, there ought to be some effort to try to focus this study on 
the problems of rural Alaska. There ought to be some effort to have the 
State match the money for this study.
  There are many, many studies and many, many projects in this bill 
that are worthwhile. But local communities are matching those, States 
are matching those, private organizations are matching that. This one 
is simply a free gift of $20 million to the State of Alaska. I would 
urge Members to support the Vento motion.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Resources.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion 
to instruct conferees.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I believe that if a comprehensive 
infrastructure bill was brought to the full floor of this Congress, 
there would be many people who would support it. I think it is quite 
clear that the infrastructure needs of the country are quite severe and 
that we ought to have a comprehensive approach to these infrastructure 
needs. But this is a particular appropriation for one particular State, 
$20 million in one fiscal year and an open-ended circumstance for the 
next several years, probably as much as $100 million over a 5-year 
period for the State of Alaska.
  As has been pointed out, this Congress has not been ungenerous to the 
State of Alaska. Alaska is second only to the State of Mississippi in 
terms of Federal per capita aid.
  In addition to that, the State has its own $42 billion fund from oil 
royalties. That fund will be distributed to every man, woman and child 
in the State this year as it was last year. Last year, every person in 
the State received about $1,300. That is $5,200 for a family of four.
  It is also true that Alaska has not been aggressive in taxing itself. 
This is

[[Page H6600]]

a State without a State income tax, and much of the State does not have 
a State sales tax. So it is hard to imagine why the Congress would be 
appropriating this particular money for this one State for this one 
particular situation, particularly when the expenditure is so open-
ended.
  In other words, this money could be spent for virtually anything. It 
could be spent to build roads anywhere. It could be spent to engage in 
a whole host of activities which would be contrary to sound 
environmental not less economic policy.
  With all that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is prudent for us 
to join with those who have called this a taxpayer boondoggle and 
support the Vento motion.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the motion to instruct.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________