[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 118 (Monday, September 13, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8126-H8127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2605, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2605) making appropriations for energy 
and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, 
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 California?
  There was no objection.


              Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Visclosky

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

       Mr. Visclosky moves that in resolving the difference 
     between the House and Senate, the

[[Page H8127]]

     managers on the part of the House at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 2605, be 
     instructed to insist on the higher funding levels for the 
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program included in 
     the House-passed bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) each 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I bring this motion to instruct conferees to the House 
floor today and would argue four points on its behalf.
  First of all, I again would want to compliment the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard) and the staff on both sides and members of the 
subcommittee because I think we in the House have put together a very 
good work product. I would hope that we collectively in the House could 
protect our prerogatives during the conference.
  I would, first of all, point out as far as water projects that are 
important as far as the economic viability and future of this country, 
as well as to individual Members and their constituencies, our figure 
is $454 million over the Senate figure.
  Because of the misallocation between the two bodies, there is a $1.2 
billion difference between the House and Senate versions. And, 
essentially, if we factor that $400 million in, the differential as far 
as protecting Members' interest is about 1.6. So I think it is very 
important that we make the point today to the other body that we want 
to hold firm to protect the economic infrastructure of this country and 
Members' prerogatives.
  Secondly, since this House passed the bill to the other body, the 
Water Resources and Development Act has been signed into law and that 
has placed even more demand as far as the limited resources we have.
  The third point I would make is that, even with the higher water 
figure in the House, we are $320 million under what the Corps' 
capability is if we would fund all of the Corps' capability and 
projects on the boards.
  Those include such important economic improvement such as harbor 
dredging, commercial and navigation as far as our economic 
infrastructure, including flood control to prevent the loss of life and 
property damage. It includes environmental restoration. And we have 
some major projects in the proposal of the beach nourishment. We 
recently had tropical storms and hurricanes devastate portions of the 
United States.
  Finally, the important issue of water supply. I would close this 
portion of my remarks by simply saying again, given the misallocation 
and higher allocation with the other body, given their preponderance to 
oversubscribe for Department of Energy programs, I would want to 
protect the prerogatives of this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) has made I 
think very substantive points on his motion, and I support his motion 
without exception to instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Packard, Rogers, Knollenberg, 
Frelinghuysen, Callahan, Latham, Blunt, Young of Florida, Visclosky, 
Edwards, Pastor, Forbes, and Mr. Obey.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________