[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18051-18054]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2605, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 261 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 261

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2605) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2000, 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 4 
     of rule XIII 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 amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 or clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived 
     except as follows: page 7, line 1, through page 9, line 2; 
     page 36, lines 21 through 25. 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 8 of rule XVIII. 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 gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), 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.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 261 is an open rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 2605, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2000. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, 
divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule waives clause 4(a) of rule 13, which requires a 3-day 
layover of the committee report. The rule also waives clause 2 of Rule 
XXI, which prohibits unauthorized or legislative provisions in an 
appropriations bill, and it waives clause 5(a) of Rule XXI, which 
prohibits a tax or tariff provision in a bill reported by a committee 
with jurisdiction over revenue measures. These are waived against 
provisions in the bill, except as otherwise specified in the rule.
  Madam Speaker, this rule accords priority in recognition to Members 
who have preprinted amendments in the Congressional Record. This will 
simply encourage Members to take advantage of the option in order to 
facilitate consideration of amendments on the House floor and to inform 
Members of the details of pending amendments.
  The rule also provides that the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment, and that the 
Chairman may reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 minutes, 
provided that the vote immediately follow another recorded vote, and 
that the voting time on the first in a series of votes is not less than 
15 minutes. This will provide a more definite voting schedule for all 
Members and hopefully will help guarantee the timely completion of the 
appropriations bills.
  House Resolution 261 also provides for one motion to recommit, with 
or without instructions, as is the right of the minority Members of the 
House.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 261 is a typical open rule to be 
considered for general appropriations bills. This rule does not 
restrict the normal open amending process in any way, and any 
amendments that comply with the standing Rules of the House may be 
offered for consideration. While a vast number of amendments is not 
expected, the rule permits those Members who have amendments every 
opportunity to offer them.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 2605 appropriates a total of $20.2 billion in 
discretionary budget authority, which is $880 million below last year's 
level and $1.4 billion below the President's request. As we all know, 
the Committee on Appropriations has, once again, had to balance a wide 
array of interests and make tough choices with scarce resources. I 
commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of 
the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the 
ranking member for their work on this legislation.
  Specifically, the bill provides $4.19 billion for the Corps of 
Engineers for civil projects such as flood control, shoreline 
protection and navigation

[[Page 18052]]

and environmental projects, which is an increase of $91 million over 
last year's level. The bill also provides $784.7 million for the Bureau 
of Reclamation to maintain, operate, and rehabilitate Bureau projects 
and western water infrastructure, which is $2.6 million over last 
year's level.
  As we keep our fiscal House in order, we must ensure that all funding 
is spent efficiently and where it is needed most. This bill achieves 
this goal. Notwithstanding the constraints we now face after decades of 
fiscal irresponsibility, H.R. 2605 effectively funds solar and 
renewable energy programs, nuclear energy programs, science programs, 
and atomic energy defense activities.
  Madam Speaker, clearly the Department of Energy is a department that 
is plagued by mismanagement and abuse, and I want to comment on two 
specific provisions in this appropriations bill that the Committee on 
Appropriations has taken to reform and improve management and security.
  First, the bill reduces contractor travel by 50 percent, a decrease 
of $125 million from last year's level. The General Accounting Office 
has reported widespread abuses of travel funds, excessive waste of 
taxpayers' money, and the overall use of contractors on Department of 
Energy programs. We cannot stand for this kind of mismanagement and 
waste, and I strongly support the significant reduction in funding for 
contractor travel in this bill.
  I also wanted to comment on the bill's provisions that delays $1 
billion in obligations for the Department of Energy until after June 
30, 2000, and until Congress has enacted legislation restructuring the 
national security program currently under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Energy.
  The security of our nuclear secrets is vital to this Nation and the 
Department of Energy has shown itself to be inept in the safeguarding 
of these secrets. While reports have indicated problems with the 
Department of Energy for years, the Department's confusing structure 
and overlapping lines of responsibility have continued to undermine any 
effort to improve security from within the Department. By withholding 
these funds until Congress restructures the national security program, 
we send a strong message that this Congress demands improved management 
and accountability when it comes to protecting nuclear secrets.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 2605 was favorably reported out of the Committee 
on Appropriations, as was this open rule by the Committee on Rules. I 
urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with the 
general debate and consideration of this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder), my colleague and friend, for yielding me the customary half 
hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the 
chairman of that subcommittee, for their very hard work. This is their 
first time steering the Energy and Water Development appropriations 
bills through committee and they have done an excellent job.

                              {time}  1600

  Even though this bill is very complicated, they managed to put 
together a bipartisan bill that was approved by the Committee on 
Appropriations on a voice vote. Madam Speaker, they deserve our 
gratitude and they deserve our congratulations.
  Madam Speaker, like most appropriation bills, this bill is coming to 
the floor with an open rule that waives points of order against 
legislating on an appropriations bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it. In general, this is a very good bill which funds some very 
excellent energy and water infrastructure projects. Specifically, it 
provides $4.2 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and $15.5 billion 
for the Department of Energy.
  The Army Corps of Engineers will be able to continue their civil 
projects, like controlling floods, protecting our shorelines, and 
supporting navigational and environmental projects.
  They will also receive $951 million in funding for the new Harbor 
Services Fund, which will make improvements, vast improvements, to our 
ports and help maintain our harbors. They also will receive $25 million 
for Challenge 21, which is a river restoration and flood mitigation 
program.
  Madam Speaker, in addition to water projects, this bill also funds 
the Energy Department, which is responsible for atomic defense 
activities as well as conducting basic science and energy research 
activities, which are very, very important in today's high-tech world.
  For instance, Madam Speaker, the Energy Department helps develop 
clean non-greenhouse gas power sources, but they might need more 
funding to do so. Otherwise our solar and renewable energy programs 
will take a back seat to those of other countries, and I believe the 
United States should be on the cutting edge.
  Unfortunately, our Internet program was cut as well. This bill cuts 
funding for the next generation Internet program, also known as 
Internet 2. This program will help keep the United States on the 
cutting edge of information and communication technologies by making it 
easier for universities and government to conduct research using wider 
bandwidths.
  Madam Speaker, now is not the time to be pulling away from the 
Internet, and I hope this funding can be restored. Furthermore, as it 
stands now, Madam Speaker, this bill contains some anti-environmental 
riders which will make it harder to protect wetlands and harder to 
protect communities against floods. Because of those anti-environmental 
riders, the administration is strongly opposed to this bill.
  But under this open rule, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) 
will be able to offer an amendment which can get rid of those anti-
wetland amendments and greatly improve the bill.
  Once again, Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard), the chairman, and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for their very hard work, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this open rule and support the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
  Mr. PACKARD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding time to me. I deeply appreciate the comments of both the 
gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Massachusetts on the 
rule.
  Madam Speaker, this is an open rule. It is a fair rule, one that I 
totally support, and I want to encourage all the Members to support it, 
vote for it, and get on with the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, I would like to use my time on the 
debate on the rule to do three things. The first is to indicate my 
support, as well, for passage of the rule. It is a good rule.
  Secondly, I would like to thank the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Packard) and to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle on the committee, and to thank all of the staff for their 
hard work on this very good bill.
  Given the allocations that the subcommittee faced, given the 
responsibilities that the subcommittee faced, and given the positioning 
we must place ourselves in to have a successful conference with the 
other body, I do believe that we have done a very good job.
  Having said that, I want to use the remainder of my time to set the 
stage for the amendment I will offer to the bill. The issue deals with 
the question of the Clean Water Act, current permitting processes that 
are violative of

[[Page 18053]]

the Clean Water Act, and the preservation of wetlands in this country.
  Wetlands are key in the United States of America, and are vital as 
far as flood protection. Wetlands are essential as far as our water 
quality. They are valuable as far as the preservation of wildlife 
habitat, and they are critical for recreational opportunities. We are 
losing the benefit of these wetlands, and if the language contained in 
the bill today is not stripped out, we will lose additional wetlands in 
an unwarranted fashion.
  When European settlers began to come to North America, there were 220 
million acres of wetlands. As the chart indicates, in 1995, according 
to the Department of Agriculture, there are only 124 million acres 
left. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency, we continue to lose 
70,000 to 90,000 acres of precious wetlands every year, and this must 
stop.
  Beginning under the Reagan administration in 1985, it became the 
policy of our national government to do something about this issue. The 
ante was upped, so to speak, in 1989 under President Bush.
  I have a statement for my colleagues from President Bush dated June 
8, 1989. Essentially, the President said that somewhere around 1989 he 
would hope that future generations begin to understand that things 
changed and we began to hold onto our parks and refuges, and we 
protected our species. In that year, under the Bush administration, the 
seeds of a new policy about our valuable wetlands were sown, a policy 
summed up in three simple word by President Bush: ``No net loss.''
  The legislative riders that again I believe are violative of the 
Clean Water Act and will lead to the loss of additional wetlands are 
strongly opposed by the Army Corps of Engineers. They are strongly 
opposed by the Federal Emergency Management Administration. They are 
strongly opposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
  It is my understanding that the President has indicated the bill 
would be vetoed if these anti-environmental riders were not stripped 
from the bill. This is a serious and fundamental issue. I would remind 
all of my colleagues that this is only the second time in 21 years that 
an administration has issued a veto threat on this bill. We are talking 
about a major and substantive change.
  I would remind my colleagues as well that in the last three 
Congresses, over 225 bills have been introduced on wetlands and the 
Clean Water Act. We have not been able to solve some of the conflicting 
positions and opinions through the authorization process. This is not 
the time, this is not the vehicle, to do this.
  I would encourage all of my colleagues to listen to the debate and to 
support my amendment during consideration of the bill to strip this 
rider out. That is my one fundamental objection. It is a serious 
difference of opinion. It is the only one, I would point out, that I 
have with the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding time to me.
  I rise in support of the rule and in general support of this bill. 
This is an important bill for our country. It is especially important 
for Colorado, as well, because it provides the funding for continuing 
work on the critical task of cleaning up Rocky Flats, the former atomic 
weapons facility.
  The flats sits near the heart of the Denver-Boulder metropolitan 
area, which is home to more than 2 million people. It has extensive 
amounts of hazardous materials. For all Coloradans it is a matter of 
highest priority to have Rocky Flats cleaned up efficiently, safely, 
and promptly.
  In 1997, the DOE designated the Rocky Flats site as a pilot for 
accelerated clean-up and closure, and is working to finish cleaning it 
up in time for closure in the year 2006. I strongly support this 
effort, as does the entire Colorado delegation here in the House and 
the other body as well. So I am very glad the bill includes the amount 
requested in the President's budget for the Rocky Flats closure fund.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and 
the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), and the ranking members, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their leadership and for recognizing the 
importance of this undertaking for Colorado and our Nation.
  I also appreciate the inclusion in this bill of funds for the work of 
the DOE's Office of Worker and Community Transition. The activities of 
this office, which implements the so-called 3161 program, are essential 
if we are truly to keep faith with the Cold War warriors who worked at 
Rocky Flats and at the other sites in the DOE's nuclear weapons 
complex.
  In addition, funding through this office is very important to assist 
the local communities as they work to adjust to ongoing changes now 
underway at Rocky Flats, and those that will come after clean-up and 
closure are achieved.
  For example, a number of these communities have joined together to 
form the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments. This organization, 
working with other communities and groups, can play a vital role in 
building consensus about the future uses of both the open space buffer 
zone and the more intensively developed industrial zone, as well.
  So I regret that the bill does not provide all the funds requested by 
the President for worker and community transition purposes. However, I 
do understand the tighter constraints under which the Committee on 
Appropriations has had to work, and I hope that as we proceed with the 
legislative process, it will be possible to increase that amount to a 
level more adequate to the program's important purposes.
  However, I am very concerned about the language in the committee 
report suggesting that the DOE ``should prepare for significantly 
decreased or no funding in fiscal year 2001 for implementing these 3161 
programs.'' Terminating or even deeply reducing this fund next year 
would not be wise or appropriate. It would be a serious breach of faith 
with our Cold War veterans, and would make it that much harder for 
local communities to adequately respond to the changed circumstances at 
Rocky Flats and elsewhere throughout the complex of DOE sites. So I 
urge the committee to rethink this point, and to refrain from such an 
approach when it develops next year's bill.
  In addition, there are a couple of areas where I think the bill needs 
improvement. For example, there are provisions related to wetlands that 
I think should not be included. I think the bill would be better if it 
did not include language that could make it harder for us to take 
action to deal with problems associated with climate change and global 
warming.
  I also have some concerns about the bill's provisions as they could 
affect the Western Power Administration and related entities. In my 
view, though, the most troublesome aspect of the bill is the inadequate 
funding it would provide for the DOE's very important programs related 
to solar and renewable energy, both here at home and internationally, 
as well.
  Working with others on both sides of the aisle, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and I have been working hard to improve this part 
of the bill to make it even more balanced and a better measure.
  I will have more to say regarding the solar and renewable energy 
programs, but for now let me reiterate my appreciation for the hard 
work of the Members and staff of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development, and the entire Committee on Appropriations.
  I urge support for the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of both the rule 
and H.R. 2065, the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, and also in support of the rule.

[[Page 18054]]

  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and 
also our ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 
for their continued support for the Houston-Galveston navigation 
project. I also want to thank all the Members of that committee, and 
particularly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for his leadership.
  For two consecutive years, the Congress has appropriated sufficient 
funds to complete the widening and deepening of the Houston Ship 
Channel project in 4 years. This fiscal year, the $60 million 
appropriation in this bill ensures we will maintain the optimum 
construction schedule.
  Maintaining this schedule is important because it will add an 
additional $281 million to the project's rate of investment, return on 
investment, and save taxpayers $63.5 million in increased escalation 
and investment costs.
  The expansion of the Houston Ship Channel is important on many 
levels. The port of Houston, connected to the Gulf of Mexico by the 50-
mile ship channel, is ranked first in foreign tonnage and second in 
total tonnage among U.S. ports and eighth in total tonnage among world 
ports.
  With more than 7,000 vessels navigating the channel annually and an 
anticipated increase over the next few years, the widening and 
deepening is a necessary step in safeguarding the safety and economic 
viability of the port and the city of Houston.
  The port of Houston provides $5.5 billion in annual business 
revenues, and creates 196,000 direct and indirect jobs. By generating 
$300 million annually in customs fees and $213 million annually in 
State and local taxes, the Houston-Galveston navigation project will 
more than pay for itself.
  I appreciate the subcommittee's support, and ask my colleagues to 
support both this rule and the bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Madam Speaker, there is legislation contained in this bill before us 
that is protected by the rule, legislating on an appropriations bill. 
This legislation that pertains to the Bonneville Power Administration 
is very, very problematic, and in fact, is contradicted by language in 
the manager's report. But, of course, we know the language in the 
manager's report does not hold sway over legislative provisions 
contained within the bill protected by the rule, riders on the bill.
  There are two provisions that are aimed at Bonneville Power 
Administration and other Federal power marketing agencies that are 
damaging and very ill-informed. One is incredibly broad, and it would 
repeal legislation Congress passed by a large majority in the 1992 
Energy Policy Act.

                              {time}  1615

  It allowed the Bonneville Power Administration to directly fund 
operations and maintenance at hydroelectric facilities operated by the 
Army Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation in the Pacific Northwest.
  For years, we had a horrendous backlog and horrendous inefficiency. 
But then this amendment passed. In fact, now unlike other Federal power 
marketing agencies and systems around the country, we are pretty much 
up to date, and it is working very efficiently and effectively, both 
for the Federal taxpayers and for the region.
  Why would this bill repeal that? It is some sort of strange flat-
earth view of competition that does not exist and cannot effectively 
deal with the problem and did not before we had a change in the 
statute.
  Secondly, the bill would prevent Bonneville Power Administration and 
other PMAs from cooperating with the utility customers to properly 
maintain the regional transmission grades.
  Here we are worried about system reliability across the country which 
carries both public and private power, and we are going to undermine 
that in this bill. That is not a good move for the West or even the 
Southeast in terms of the Tennessee Valley Authority and other PMAs. It 
is very damaging. In fact, it is so damaging that I will have to vote 
against the entire bill, and I would urge other western Members to do 
the same.
  Finally, there is a provision that forces BPA to discontinue an 
important infrastructure development. BPA is installing a fiberoptic 
network on its transmission towers to improve its communication and its 
dispatch of power. It is good business. They need to do it.
  At virtually no incremental cost, they could provide excess capacity 
to remote rural communities who will never see in this century or even 
in the next century for 20 or 30 years a private provider stringing 
fiberoptics to their communities.
  BPA owns 80 percent of the transmission. It does not, by policy, 
allow other people to access or hang things on its transmission. They 
are the only alternative out there. In some, again, misguided attempt 
to bring about competition that does not exist, and if it did exist, I 
would not be up here on that particular issue and prohibit them from 
using their excess capacity at no incremental cost to provide services 
to those communities.
  These are ill-intentioned. They are not overcome by the manager's 
language. I urge colleagues to vote against the entire bill unless 
these are fixed.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this open 
rule. 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.

                          ____________________