tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 15, 2009 10:00am-1:00pm EDT
decided a case is not a question of hiding it from others. with respect to the broader question that you are raising which is, why do you do it by summary order or in a published opinion or and a procurium -- the practice is that that is 75% of circuit court decisions. they are decided by summary order, partly because we cannot handle the volume of our work if we were writing long decisions in every case, but more importantly, because not every case requires a long opinion if the district court opinion has been clear and thorough on an issue. . .
it adequately explains the decisions that the supreme court addressed, and reviewed. so, to the extent that a particular panel considers that an issue has been decided, by existing precedent, that is a question that the board above can obviously revisit as it did and richy kurtz said that we understand what the circuit did and what existing law is, but we should be looking at this question and a new way. that is the job of the supreme court. >> we will have to leave this hearing. the house has just come in for the day. you can continue to watch the hearing live on c-span3 or at c- span.org. the house will debate $33 billion in energy and water products in the new budget year. they have just gaveled in. [captioning performed by
national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] w us what we need to see, teach us what we need to know and lead us where we need to go as individuals and as a nation. i acknowledge publicly that you are god and that all of us who are blessed to live in this great country need to wait on you and seek your face today and every day. please, father, guide the work done in this room and make your presence known. i ask this in jesus name. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from louisiana, congressman fleming. mr. fleming: i ask you to follow me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from nebraska, congressman smith, is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in honor of today's guest chaplain, pastor gary hashley. he's joining us today from my hometown of gering where he served the congregation at calvary memorial church. he graduated from the grand rapids school of the bible and music. he served in kalamazoo, michigan before settling in nebraska. it's an honor to be here today. for 30 years pastor hashley's service has had a profound impact on his community. he's led efforts to feed the poor, to spread his faith to those in need and has even been active for loke -- with local councils. i thank him for his service to our community and for his words
of faith this morning. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: thank you. americans want quality affordable health care. 50 million americans are uninsured. h.r. 3200 will still leave 17 million americans uninsured. now, how's that possible? because it keeps in place a for-profit insurance system which siphons off at least $400 billion every year which could be used to make sure all americans, not just most americans, receive quality health care. h.r. 3200 will not solve the problem of underinsurance. 60% of all bankruptcies in america are due to people not being able to pay hospital bills. of those 80% are insured. people just can't afford the
rising premiums, co-pays and deductibles which are the basis of insurance company profits. the only way to break the insurance company's hold on our system is to afford -- is to have a single-payer not-for-profit health care system. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, democrats should stop trying to spend the results of their economic borrowing program. despite what the obama administration has said, the 2,600,000 who have lost jobs since january is a clear sign that their recovery act has not done its job. instead of more rhetoric, democrats should work with republicans to put in place commonsense proposals that will rein in the wasteful spending and focus on job creation. our economy will grow strong again thanks to individuals and
small businesses that create the majority of jobs in this country. it will not be due to the billions and big government borrowing perpetrated by this administration. we should focus our time on helping small businesses grow and provide relief to those who are suffering during these tough economic times. republicans have offered a plan to do just that, and we will do so without adding trillions in additional big government liberal spending and actions such as the new health care taxes that will destroy jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. baca: mr. speaker, we have a critical role in reviewing the specific details of health care reform. access to health care is something we need to offer every american across the
nation. everyone should have coverage. everyone should have access. there is no question that we must have comprehensive reform to our health system. critics to reform failed to get the message and only talk about rhetoric. doing nothing for a broken system is not the answer. they do not understand the fear and devastation families face while -- to trips to the emergency rooms. they don't understand the severe ramifications faced by families when they receive the doctor's bill or hospital bill. families must have access to health care. never again will you have coverage be denied. never again will you have to make a decision between life or job decision based on coverage. i urge my colleagues to support comprehensive health reform. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise?
mr. fleming: i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. fleming: thank you, mr. speaker. as it stands now, the democrat health plan equals tax-payer funded abortions. let me repeat that. as it stands now, the democrat health plan equals taxpayer funded abortions. if unamended, the obama health plan will be the most massive abortion expansion since roe v. wade and every insurance payer will be forced to pay for every abortion. the taking of innocent life is not health care. i know. i'm a physician. yet, without an abortion exclusion this reform bill will be the platform for thrusting abortion into every aspect of health care in this country. the secretary of h.h.s. and the so-called benefits advisory committee will determine the specific mandated services. abortion will be included in
the minimum benefits unless it is excluded. and the democrats refuse to do that. this bill does an end run to current funding restrictions that contain language that both authorizes and appropriates. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, we have an historic opportunity to finally improve health care in america, to finally bring access and quality of care to all americans, not just the lucky few. i'm so proud to support the bill introduced by the three committees of jurisdiction and to play my part in seeing us pass legislation in both the house and senate before august recess. what's great is that there is something for everyone here. there's affordable access to coverage for people who've never been insured before. there's help for seniors stuck in the dreadful part d doughnut
hole. there are consumer pro tuxes against long standing egregious practices by insurance companies. there's amazing investment into our health care work force, including physicians, nurses and allied health professionals. and there's finally an incentive to practice wellness-based health care instead of simply illness-based disease treatment. i urge all of my colleagues to join me in passing america's affordable health choices act and enacting the health care reform our constituents so desperately need and americans deserve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, as we debate the best way to reform our health care system and ensure that all americans have access to quality health care, some members of congress insist that a government-run option
must be included. yet in one proposal members of congress are curiously exempt from the public plan. for those who are convinced that government-run health care won't sacrifice quality and won't lead to rationing, i backed a resolution saying that if a member of congress votes to support the public option then that member must be automatically enrolled in it. if members are convinced that the government-run public option will deliver the same quality of care as their congressional health plans, then they ought to be the first in line to enroll. members of congress should stop asking the american people to make sacrifices they are not willing to make themselves. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. sires: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sires: mr. speaker, today i rise to speak of the pressing need to fix our health care system.
every day america's not only worried about getting well but whether they can afford to get well or stay healthy. they are not the only ones who worry. all too often small businesses are forced to choose between coverage or layoffs. we have the most expensive health system care in the world, spending almost 50% more per person on health care than the next most costly nation. yet, we're not healthier for it. mr. speaker, i am glad that congress and the president are working together on a plan to reform our health care system. a plan that will reduce cost, provide choices and guarantee affordable quality health care for all. we must act now for it is evident that the status quo is simply not working. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. pitts: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, when congress passed the $787
billion so-called stimulus bill, the white house promised to set up a website where people could go to learn how the money was being spent. recovery.org -- or.gov, has sense been criticized -- has since been criticized. it seems doubtful what critics had in mind was an $18 overhaul. that's exactly what thed a -- was an $18 million overhaul. that's exactly what the administration was planning. they announced wednesday that it is being spent to redesign recovery.gov website. a cost estimate makes the $18 million figure even more outrageous. according to the site, the top end estimate for premium web design from a professional firm with all the bells and whistles comes out at $172. one has to wonder what the
other $17 million in taxpayer money will be used for. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. perlmutter: for purposes of addressing the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. and today much of the conversation is about the health care system. it's a very personal matter to me as it is to every man, woman and child in america. i have a daughter with epilepsy. she's not insurable. we have a system in place today that denies her coverage, that excludes her from coverage. that's wrong and it's probably unconstitutional under the 14th amendment to the united states constitution. there should not be discrimination in health care. there shouldn't be denial of coverage because of a preexisting condition. we need to change the system that exists so that there is coverage for all americans with chronic illnesses and the like. the bill that we have in congress will change that
coverage, ladies and gentlemen, and i urge its passage and with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, a social security administration executives enjoyed a luxury retreat at the expense of the american taxpayer. they flew 700 of their managers to the perfect swanky arizona built more hotel for what they called organization al training. it cost the taxpayers $750,000. these bureaucrats enjoyed golf, musical entertainment, dancing, skits, catered food, cocktails and even a casino night. sounds like a vacation for the rich and famous. meanwhile, seniors are worried about even getting their monthly social security check. there was a near riot when taxpayers found out a.i.g. spent half that amount for their luxury retreat by using taxpayer bailout money. but the social security
administrator dismissed the comparison with a.i.g. by saying, well, it's different taxpayer money. i'm glad he cleared that up for us. the arrogance of the social security executives to be jetting around the country, going to a luxury spa and then make people pay into social security pick up the $750,000 tab is disgraceful. i guess the spend contracts never heard of tell conferencing or even the motel six and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> to address the house for one minute. yesterday we had the historic introduction of our health care reform act. this is going to improve care for americans, for people that have insurance, but also for people that don't. importantly, this legislation includes a robust public health insurance option. the cost of health care insurance is just too high for people that have it and businesses that are paying for it and the public health insurance option is going to be
one of our most effective ways to bring the cost of insurance down. don't take my word for it, take a study by the commonwealth fund that shows that premiums for individuals can be reduced by 25% by the pressure put on private insurers by public health insurance option. that's why studies show that 70% to 80% of americans want the option to purchase a public insurance option. because it will lower their costs, both as individuals and as employees of businesses throughout this country who are paying far too much for health care. mr. speaker, i encourage us to take a serious look at a very, very important health care bill that's been introduced before us and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, yesterday house democratic leadership held a press conference to introduce a health care reform legislation. as a physician who has practiced medicine for more than 30 years, i have major concerns that this plan will ultimately put a
government bureaucrat in between patients and their doctors and eventually lead to a one size fits all health care system where the government decides what treatments are necessary for patients. when money gets tight, this leads to rationing of care and long waiting lists for patients. we have already seen the pilot for this program, it's called ten care. you just ask the -- tenncare. you just ask the democratic governors of the tennessee what it's done to the budget in their state. i just want to read a sentence of testimony from a canadian doctor who has seen first hand of a single pair system. what we have in canada is access to a government state mandated wait list and the wait lists are long and patients are suffering on this wait list. our own supreme court said patients are actually dying as they wait for care in canada. mr. speaker, this is not the sort of health care reform that the american people want or need. and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? without objection. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr.
speaker. anyone ever heard the expression the proof is in the pudding? well, when the private health insurance companies found out that there may not be a government option, you know what happened to the health insurance stocks on wall street? they went through the roof. profits skyrocketed because you know why? the health insurance companies make money off of the consumers when they don't have competition. when they're able to cut your health care and make profits out of denying you health insurance. that's how the private marketplace makes money. by denying you health care. they only want to cover the healthy and well. we have the government option, the public option to guarantee the american people that they get their health care that they pay for. republicans don't want to hear that because they're bought and paid for by the private health care companies. we're on the side of the
american people. we want to protect the people so that they can get their health re irrespective of a pre-existing health care condition. i'm proud that this health care plan covers all pre-existing conditions including mental health parity as covered by the mental health parity act that was passed and signed by president bush last cycle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. speaker. he just said that republicans are bought and paid for. i would ask that those words be take be down. the speaker pro tempore: members will suspend. the gentleman from rhode island has taken a seat. the clerk will report the words.
mr. kennedy: i'd like to make a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. kennedy: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kennedy: yes, i did not mean to impugn the reputation of any individual member. i was merely speaks about the party that was representing the insurance companies. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to withdraw the words? mr. kennedy: i seek to withdraw the words. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i withdraw my request that the words be taken down since they're withdrawn and i appreciate my friend doing so. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the words are withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: qui to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, -- thank you, mr. speaker. i know we have disagreements on some of these issues and i know what the intent is of the
democratic proposed health care bill. and i know the intent is not to hurt the lower wage earner, but this bill that's being proposed is going to hammer employers who don't -- an 8% penalty if they don't provide health care. well, so they're going to turn around and provide health care because the people i know are saying, we're just hanging on, we got these good workers, we don't want to lose them. so if i'm going to be penalized 8%, i'll have to provide health care but i'm going to have to reduce their wages by the amount the health care costs. it maybe $5,000 or $6,000 and i'm begging my friends on the other side, this is my plea, mr. speaker, don't take $5,000 or $6,000 of wages from the lowest wage earner right now. don't force small billses, and i know there is an exemption at the low end, but smaller businesses are still going to either have to lay people off,
pay an 8% penalty or take wages away. don't hurt our lower wage workers. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. weiner: one minute to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. weiner: i would say to the american people who are watching the oncoming debate about health care that in many ways we already know what the two sides are. the republican party, the party that opposed the medicare act, opposed social security and medicaid, the republican party has made it clear, they're not only the party of no, they're the party of ignoring the problems of the middle class and those strig struggling to make it. the democratic party, the party that's producing this legislation is the party that again and again has said, we're going to step up to the challenges facing this country. now, if you believe that we are spending just the right amount, that we're not spending too much money on health care, you're alone. because i think we're spending trillions upon trillions of dollars more than we need to. if you think that the hundreds of billions of dollars that people are paying for out of pocket is just right, then you
probably want the republican party's plan which is to do nothing. but the democratic party and the leadership of frank pallone and boehm and the others are saying we're going to try to solve this problem. you know why? because that's what we do. that's what democrats do. now the republican party doesn't do that. they say no, no, no. but we have a problem. if you want choice, if want affordability and if you want health care for your family, you're going to get it with the democratic party, not with the republican party. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. westmoreland: to address the house for one minute, revise and extends my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. westmoreland: thank you, mr. speaker. the last speaker just talked about what the republicans want to do, well, what the democrats want to do is spend, spend, spend and i gave a little math lesson yesterday and i'd like to revisit that today, mr. speaker. you know, we talk about millions of dollars and we talk about billions of dollars and we talk about trillions of dollars and the more you hear those words, they just become words and you don't realize how much money that is. a million seconds equals a
little over 11 days. a billion seconds is 31 years and eight months. a trillion seconds is 31,710 years. if i gave you $1,000 a second it would take me 31.7 years to give you $1 trillion. at $1,000 a second. we're not the party of no. we're the party of doing what we can afford. the democrats are the party of throwing money at any problem that comes about with no regard at what it's costing the american taxpayer and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. dahlkemper: mr. speaker,
any meaningful attempts to create long-term sustainable health care reform must begin by taking control of our skyrocketing costs. that means we must get serious about combating obesity, a preventable disease that costs this country $117 billion. to that end, i've introduced to two pieces of legislation. the first bill is called the obesity treatment and wellness act of 2009 which addresses the fact that half the costs associated with obesity are paid through medicare and medicaid. my legislation directs medicaid to pay for nutrition counseling which can effectively treat this disease. my second bill, the healthy communities act of 2009, sets up a five-year public-private community grant program to encourage a community approach to promoting wellness and fighting obesity. mr. speaker, only when we make wellness a major component of our reform efforts can we expect to get control of costs. i urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to ensure quality, affordable health care that works for all americans. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, opponents of health care reform have attacked our efforts to bring care to all americans. their favorite scare tactic has been to allege that a public option will lead to a government takeover of health care. this could not be further from the truth. under the plan we introduced yesterday, the c.b.o. projects that just 3% of americans will be enrolled in the public plan once it is fully implemented. hardly a government take the gentlewoman's time has expired. in fact, -- takeover. in fact, the c.b.o. estimates that employer-provided plans will have millions of new enrollees under the legislation and most of those americans using the health care exchange will choose private insurance for their coverage. this is a uniquely american solution a that combines the best of the public and private sectors to bring some much needed competition to the health care marketplace. giving american families the
peace of mind of knowing they will always have high quality, affordable health care choices. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. waters: mr. speaker, we urgently need to fix the health care system for american families. every day americans worry about getting well but whether they can afford to get the kind of health care they need. for american businesses, soaring health care costs put american companies at a competitive disadvantage and a global -- in a global economy. for our fiscal future we have the most expensive health care system in the world. we're emphasizing cost, choice, security and quality. we want a policy that costs less, covers more and is quality. your choice. you have it, if you like it, you keep it.
for security and peace of mind, for quality patient-centered care, we want american solutions for american health. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without further one-minute requests, does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. gingrey: if the one-minute requests are completed. mr. speaker, yes, i seek recognition. i move that the house now do adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, on that i would a a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. gingrey: yes, i do, mr. speakeraker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the
yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: take your conversations to the cloakroom. please clear the aisles and the well. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. matsui: mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 645 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempo clerk will report the resolutio
the clerk: house calendar number 90, house resolution 645, resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 1, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 3183, making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. general debate sha be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read through page 63, line 12. points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, except as provided in section 2, no one amendment shall be in order except, one, the amendments printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. two, not to exceed one of the amendments printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules if offered by representative campbell of california or his designee. three, not to exceed six of the amendments printed in part c of the report of the committee on rules if offered by representative flake of arizona or his designee and, four, not to exceed three of the amendments printed in part d of the report of the committee on rules if offered by representative hensarling of texas or his designee. each such amendment maybe offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. 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. in the case of sundry amendments reported from the committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the house en gros without division of the question. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, after disposition of the amendment specified in the first section of this resolution the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on
appropriations or their designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate which shall be controlled by the proponent. section 3, the chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee. the chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill as described in clause 9 of rule 18. section 4, during consideration of the bill, h.r. 3183, the chair may reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule 18 and clauses 8 and 9 of rule 20. section 5, house resolution 618 is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.
for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i rise a point of order against the resolution. the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill which includes a waiver of section 425 of the congressional budget act which causes a violation of section 426-a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. the gentleman has met the threshold burden to identify the specific language in the resolution on which the point of order is predicated. such a point of order shall be disposed of by the question of consideration. the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. after that debate, the chair will put the question of consideration to wit, will the house now consider the resolution?
the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. but first the house will come to order. will members, especially to the chair's right, please take their conversations to the cloakroom? the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chair. you know, we're going through an appropriations process. we'll do two bills this week. traditionally appropriation bills have been open rules. they come to the floor, members are allowed to offer as many amendments as they'd wish, striking funding, moving funding around, making a policy point. that has been the tradition of this house. the house is not in order. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, the house is definitely not in order. the speaker pro tempore: members will please take their conversations are to the cloakroom.
the gentleman is entitled to be heard. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: mr. speaker, it is sometimes pointed out that it hasn't always been this way, that appropriation bills hasn't always been open, and that there's no reason why they should be. but i would remind the house, mr. speaker, that over the past 20 years we've gotten into a practice of loading up and larding up the appropriation bills with all kinds of connelly directed spending. the chairman of the appropriations committee likes to say that when he chaired the appropriations committee in 1992 when the labor-hhs bill came through there was not one congressional earmark, not one. that's just less than 20 years ago. not one congressional earmark. i think in the past couple of years there's been an upward of 2,500 earmarks in that bill. and the bill we'll address the bill, the energy and water
bill, there are literally hundreds of earmarks. now, one would like to think that the appropriations committee would vet these earmarks, would actually check them out to see if they're meeting federal purpose, if money is being wasted, if it's maybe looks bad, looks like it's tied to campaign contributions or whatever, but they don't. they don't have the time or the resources or perhaps the inclination to do so. and so all we have is this forum here on the floor. and when you bring an appropriation bill to the floor under a closed rule, a restricted rule or structured rule and deny members the ability to offer amendments, then you've shut down this place in a way that is simply not right. in this bill for this bill there were 103 amendments submitted. now, because you have to prefile your amendments, a lot of members will offer more amendments than -- they'll submit more amendments than they intend to offer on the floor just to protect their
place. so the majority party knows that we would never have offered 103 amendments on the floor. we will have time to do it. we've done it in years past, but only 21 of these were made in order. 78 republican amendments were submitted. only 14 were made in order. and the gentleman from georgia, which i'll yield three minutes to, has been offering a number of amendments and has not been able to have them made in order. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, thank you. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. and as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know i just called previously for a motion to adjourn this body. i don't typically do dilatory motions. i think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that. but what, mr. speaker, what i'm trying to say to the -- to
those who are now in charge of this body, speaker pelosi, majority leader hoyer, the chairman of the rules committee , look, you have as the gentleman from arizona has pointed out has taken away so many opportunities if not indeed all of the opportunities for the minority to represent their constituency. and that constituency, mr. speaker, is close to 700,000 people in all of our districts across this country. and we don't have the opportunity, particularly on these very important appropriations bills, these 12 spending bills which after all is probably one of the two most important things that we as members of the legislative branch are charged constitutionally to do year after year after year. i commend the majority for
wanting to get the work done and wanting to have all of that done by the end of the fiscal year. it's insanity not to do that. but we can do it in an open way as the gentleman from arizona has pointed out, and going back to the fairness that you all called for when you were campaigning so hard in the fall of 2006 and you gained the majority to a large extent on that kind of a platform and that kind of a pledge. so this is wrong, and that's why we're making these points and with that i'll yield back to the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. matsui: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. matsui: technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and ultimately the underlying
bill. in reality it's trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up or down vote on the legislation itself. i think that is wrong. i hope my colleagues will vote to consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. those who oppose the bill can vote against it in final passage. we must consider this rule and we must pass this legislation today. i have the right to close, but in the end i will urge my colleagues to vote yes so we can consider the rule and get down to doing the business of the american people. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: may i inquire as to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. i realize that this is an unfunded mandates point of order that's been raised. this is not unfunded mandates
we're talking about here. unfortunately this is about the only way we can get time to actually talk about this rule at sufficient length. and the way that these appropriation bills are being shut down for members. when the gentlelady said this should be voted on, this bill should be voted on according to its merits, the problem is there were a number of dozens and dozen of meritorious amendments that were submitted to the rules committee. and the fact that they actually had to be submitted tells us we got some problem here. because as i mentioned, appropriation bills have traditionally been opened. but meritorious amendments have been submitted and only a few have been allowed. now, i happen to have six, i believe, allowed in this bill. and i know full well the game here. i offer limitation amendments on earmarks. the majority party knows full well that earmarking is a bipartisan addiction, and the process of log rolling takes
effect and my amendments are defeated routinely. they can throw me a bone here and there and that's fine. i understand that. still we need to raise these earmarks, and let me tell you why. "the washington post" today, you can look yesterday in "roll call," the day before in "the hill" or virtually every day there's a new story about earmarks gone awry. and this one in particular talks about defense earmarks that there are some individuals in the lobbying community have just pleaded -- and in the defense community have pleaded guilty to taking earmarks from this body and spreading them around to several contractors who didn't do the work that they promised to do. and some actually taking kickbacks for the earmark money that they distributed. these were earmarks that were supposedly vetted by the appropriations committee, but we know that the appropriations
committee doesn't have the time or resources to vet these earmarks. we're going to be doing a defense appropriation bill in just a couple of weeks. we've allowed one day for that bill to be on the floor. if history holds, only a couple of amendments will be allowed, particularly amendments to strike earmarks. if we're not going to on this floor challenge these earmarks, where are we going to do it? they're not doing it in the appropriations committee. from sad experience we know that. over the past several years. the chairman of the appropriations committee has said they don't have the time or resources to adequately vet these earmarks. so we have two choices. ought to have two choices. either strike the earmarks, not bring the bill to the floor with congressional earmarks in there, or have proper time to vet them on the floor. or simply say that we're not going to allow them at all until we get this process
fixed. but instead what we've chosen to do is cover up the process and pretend that there's no problem here and simply limit the number of amendments that can be offered on the floor and hope that nobody notices and nobody sees. but what happens when nobody sees, last year, for example, we weren't allowed to offer any amendments on the floor. the defense appropriations bill was part of a minibus and no amendments were offered at all. then we have articles like this. quote, it really puts a fine point on the murky, unaccountable web on earmarks said steve ellis, watchdog group for common sense. it provides a petri dish for corruption. and certainly that's what we've seen over the past several years. but we're not allowing adequate time on the floor to vet what will likely be over 1,000
earmarks, if not several hundred, in the defense bill that's going to be coming up. what's worse, many of these, hundreds of these amendments -- i'm sorry -- these earmarks that will be in the defense bill will be given to companies whose executives will turn around and write large campaign contributions to the sponsor of the earmark in the bill. so essentially we are earmarking for our campaign contributors. i think we should all agree that if there are earmarks in this bill they certainly shouldn't be going to those who can turn around and then make a campaign contribution right directly back to them. to give federal appropriation a no bid contract, that's what earmarks are, particularly in the defense bill, no bid contracts, to give that to somebody who can turn around and write a campaign contribution right back to you is wrong. what makes it doubly wrong is in the house we are going to tell members, you can't even
challenge those earmarks on the floor because we are going to limit you to three or four amendments. choose them. that's it. that, mr. speaker, is wrong. we can't continue to do that. people say that outside of the beltway nobody cares about process, and that may be true. but take it from somebody who was in the majority and is now in the minority. bad process yields bad results. and it will catch up to you sooner or later. and what's worse, what we're doing particularly with earmarks in the defense bill reflects poorly on this house. the cloud that hangs over this body reins on republicans and democrats alike, and we ought to stand up for the institution and say, we think more of this institution than that, to have this cloud out there. so i would plead, mr. speaker, with everyone to not proceed with bills like this that don't
allow members to offer amendments on the floor, the amendments that are meritorious, they are not trying to slow down the process. they're simply trying to improve the bill. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. ms. matsui: again, i want to urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to consider so that we can debate and pass this important piece of legislation today and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. all time has expired. the resolution having been read the question is should the house now consider the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the question is decided in the
affirmative. the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one hour. ms. matsui: for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, my friend, mr. diaz-balart. all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i also ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 645. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. matsui: mr. speaker, house resolution 645 provides a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 3183, the energy and water development appropriations act for fiscal year 2010. the resolution provides for one hour of general debate controlled by the committee on appropriations. mr. speaker, i first want to thank chairman obey as well as mr. pastor and mrs. advice
lossky for their work on this bill. they've been tireless advocates for vital funding in this legislation which truly meets the needs of a number of important areas from water infrastructure to our national energy policies. specifically the bill provides $5.5 billion for the corps of engineers which is $139 million over 2009 levels. for my constituents this funding is more than just numbers. it is a matter of survival. my district sits at the confluence of two great rivers, the sacramento and the american. the sacramento is considered to have the highest flood risk of any mainly metropolitan city in the united states -- major metropolitan city in the united states. 110,000 structures, the capitol of the state of california and up to $58 billion are at risk from flooding in my district alone. the federal investments in this legislation for the corps of engineers directly benefits not
only my constituents but the capitol of the eighth largest economy in the world. vital fund willing strengthen levees along the american and sacramento rivers, levees which keep my constituents safe every single day. the bill also makes it possible for the corps of engineers to complete a g.r.r. to protect the community in my district. additional funds will go toward levee construction in south sacramento which will give that community a 100-year protection. these are projects i have worked on throughout my career in congress and i am eager to see it move forward. finally this important appropriations bill will also invest in modifications to the joint federal project to provide greater efficiency in managing flood storage in the reservoir. from the joint federal project in sacramento to the levee work in the mississippi delta to coastal restoration in the southeast, this bill works to protect our communities and commits to a strong investment
in our aging infrastructure. the legislation before us today builds on the job creating work of the american recovery and reinvestment act which has already started to stem the tide of bad economic news. in april $10 million was invested in flood protection infrastructure in bucks county, pennsylvania. this project alone would create up to 200 quality american jobs and -- in manufacturing and construction in my district alone, the recovery act has invested $21 million already in keeping my constituents home safe from floods and in keeping people in their jobs. the legislation before us today builds upon this positive record of infrastructure investment as a job creating strategy. it will employ scientists to perform hydraulic studies, engineers to design levees and construction workers to move the drirt the -- dirt. when we build our infrastructure, we rebuild our economy. the same is true for energy. when we invest in energy independence we invest in our
economic health. i strongly support the significant energy policies that this bill supports. thanks to congressional leadership in this house our country's finely on the right track toward a clean energy future that would create jobs here at home and enhance our competitiveness abroad. between the american recovery and reinvestment act and the american clean energy and security act this congress has created a new day for our national energy policy. the legislation contains $1 billion to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and keep energy prices low. this funding will go toward research, development, demonstration and deployment of energy technologies which will help our country become more energy independent. when i look to the future of the world economy, other countries are already investing in the clean energy technologies that will power the future. china, for example, doubled its wind power investment in 2008
and has made its intentions clear to become a world leader in wind energy development. the legislation before us today represents a strong step that this house can take to compete with the chinese. this bill also looks toward the future and provides robust funding for both the department of energy and the office of science. it makes a commitment to support the advancement of innovative technologies by providing $2.25 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy. it also recognizes the importance of an efficient, reliable, secure, flexible transmission and distribution grid by increasing funding for electricity delivery and energy reliability to 208 million, 52% above last year's level. every increase for clean energy in this bill is a betn the ingenuity of the american people to compete in the global
marketplace where clean energy will drive investment for decades into the future. just as every dollar invested in levees and other infrastructure in this bill is a down payment on the safety and security of communities like my hometown of sacramento. safety and security, that is what the legislation before us today is all about. i strongly support the rule and the underlying legislation and i urge my colleagues to do the same. mr. speaker, again i want to thank mr. obey and the committee for their robust work on this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from california, ms. matsui, for the time, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: the underlying legislation, the energy, water appropriations act, provides over $30 billion, actually $33.2
billion if funding for critical water projects, it helps to develop a cleaner, more independent energy sector that is less dependent on unreliable sources of foreign energy. it supports the national defense by funding critical weapons and nonproliferation programs. the water resources development act of 2007 authorized the deepening of the miami harbor to a depth of 50 feet. the underlying legislation follows up on that authorization. with the funding for planning of the dredging project. reaching a depth of 50 feet by the time that the panama canal expansion is complete in 2014 is very important. once the panama canal expansion
is complete, a new class of supercargo carriers will be able to traverse the canal and will be looking for new deep water ports to unload their cargo. however, there are very few ports in the united states ready to handle those carriers. once miami reaches the 50-foot depth mark it will be the closest u.s. port to the panama canal that can handle the carriers and will serve as a vital entry point for international trade in and out of the united states. the ability of the port of miami to accommodate those carriers will double the amount of cargo the port is able to handle and will serve to cement miami's position as the trade capital of the americas. it will also create numerous
high paying jobs and it will have an extraordinary impact, obviously, on the local economy. the florida everglades is a great national treasure. the everglades' combination of abundant moisture and rich soils and subtropical temperatures traditionally supported a vast array of species. flood control and reclamation efforts in the 1940's and the 1950's manipulated the everglades, redirecting freshwater destined for the everglades out to sea. the ecosystem was harmed by degraded water quality, pollutants from urban areas and agricultural runoff, including pesticides and excess nutrients, have harmed plant and animal
populations. the comprehensive everglades restoration plan that i support will capture freshwater destined for the sea, the life blood of the everglades, and direct it back to the ecosystem to revitalize it. at the same time, the project will also improve water supplies , provide flood control for south florida and protect wildlife. now my colleagues in the south florida delegation and i have worked closely with appropriators to secure funding for this important project. i'm thankful to my colleagues and i'm pleased that the appropriations committee agreed on the importance of this project by appropriating $210 million. i'd like to thank chairman pastor and ranking member
freelying hawesen for their -- frelinghuysen for their hard work on the underlying legislation that we're bringing to the floor today. while i support that underlying legislation i must oppose the rule by which the majority is bringing this bill to the floor. last month the majority set a dangerous precedent to limit debate on appropriations bills. debate that historically was almost always considered under an open rule, an open process of debate. so today, mr. speaker, we're set to consider the eighth of 12 appropriations bills and every bill considered so far has been considered under a structured rule that severely limits the ability of members from both sides of the aisle to bring
amendments to the floor for a debate and for a vote and not in the usual open procedure which allows every member to offer their amendments. during last week's rule committee hearing on the estate and foreign operations appropriations bill the ranking member of the appropriations committee, mr. lewis, testified that there was still time to undo the majority's new precedent restricting the ability of members to offer amendments to appropriations bills. mr. lewis asked the majority to reconsider the use of structured rules on appropriations bills, to return to regular order, to historical order, to the tradition of an open debate process on appropriations bills.
he even offered his services to persuade members to not offer dilatory amendments which would hamper the ability of congress to complete its appropriations work on time, something that both majority and minority wish to accomplish. ranking member dreier of the rules committee and i also you are aed -- offered to help ranking member lewis rein in any members who wished to unnecessarily prolong the debate process. i really hoped that the majority on the rules committee would heed mr. lewis' thoughtful suggestion and accept his offer to help move the process along if an open debate process was returned to. however, the majority once again blocked the overwhelming majority of members from both sides of the aisle from having a
full opportunity to debate the bill and represent the interests of their constituents. so, mr. speaker, the majority has not understood the damage it is causing this house by closing debate unnecessarily on appropriations bills, by breaking in effect two centuries of precedents. it's sad. we preserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentlewoman from california. ms. matsui: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to my friend, the gentleman from new york, a member of the committee on rules, mr. arcuri. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. arcuri: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to massachusetts my colleague, the gentlewoman from california, for the courtesy of
yielding to me and for her strong leadership on the rules committee. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the rule and h.r. 3183, the fiscal year 2010 energy and water development appropriations act. the bill provides much-needed funding to continue our federal commitment to meeting infrastructure needs for our nation. this bill will create jobs and invest in new technologies, scientific research and conservation efforts. i also would like to take a moment to lend my strong support to mr. pastor's amendment to h.r. 3183, the manager's amendment. the amendment provides a critical increase in funding for the northern border regional commission. the 2008 farm bill first authorized the northern border regional commission as an independent agency to address the shared economic needs and harness the unique assets of the counties along the nation's northern border from maine and new england through new york. in this region, 13.1% of the population lives in poverty.
the median household income is $6,500 below the national average. unemployment is significantly higher than the national average, and the region actually lost population between 1990 and 2000 while the overall population of the united states rose by 13.2%. the region shares mean common economic challenges stemming from the relative geographic isolation, aging infrastructure and the loss of natural resource-based industry that has historically between an economic engine. at the same time the region has a common set of assets, not the least of which is expansive natural beauty and resources as well as historic and geographic ties. the commission utilizes the same model that has ep abled the appalachia regional commission to have a bottom up approach and not for profit organizations and others bring
projects, ideas to the commission from the local level. the regional commission model helps foster improved collaboration and coordination within the region and among federal and state agencies while also serving as a vehicle to leverage additional public and private sector investments. by taking a regional view, the commission can promote projects that confer a broader benefit without states having to compete among themselves for scarce funds for the region. i thank the committee for their hard work to see that the northern border regional commission receives the funding necessary to make the commission a reality for this region. i thank my colleagues from the region, representatives michaud, pingree, shea-porter, welch and my new colleague, john mchuge, for their efforts and secure -- john mchugh, for their efforts. i ask my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for three minutes. mr. terry: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate this opportunity to express my dissatisfies with this rule. this is my -- dissatisfaction with this rule. this is my 11th year, my 11th appropriations season. this is where substantive discussions have been prevented. i am extremely disturbed at this rule as all previous rules this year on appropriations. the years past, if we had a substantive meritorious amendment we were allowed to bring it to the floor without having to go through a totalitarian regime where a small group of people get to place their beliefs at the
forefront and prevent discussion. so in this charade of saying that they're just protecting us from dilatory amendments, they are using this power to silence us on substantive amendments. let me give you my example about why i stand here today expressing my frustration at the heavy-handedness of the majority. i believe that our country is in jeopardy of not having enough energy to power our economy in the future. if we look at the electricity that needs to be generated in the future, we have to build well over 230 gigabytes of new energy over the next 30 years.
let me put that in perspective. most -- so this is 460 new power plants. if we want clean, reliable and affordable energy for this country to power our economy, we have to open ourselves to nuclear power. we can't access yucca mountain. that's been shut down. but the rest of the world recycles their nuclear waste and power rods. we do not in this country. so i had an amendment that i felt very strongly about that increased for our national laboratories funding specifically to research recycling technologies that can be used at our nuclear power plants to continue to recycle their materials as they're being recognize re-cycled, not only is this energy efficient,
but wise and efficient use of these nuclear rods, nuclear rods, which also means we have solved our waste issue. not totally making yucca mountain irrelevant but certainly making it so -- thank you. but certainly putting us on a path that we can use nuclear power as a clean affordable energy without necessity of yucca mountain being open today. for some reason in our energy and commerce committee every one of our nuclear amendments were shut down and voted against. and now we have a rules committee that's preventing nuclear power amendments. i don't understand. i am at a complete loss why the majority wants to shut down nuclear power when it's the cleanest power we can have, most reliable and most affordable. that's where our future lies.
we can replace old coal-fired plants with clean new nuclear, produce twice the energy but for some reason the majority wants to shut this down. this rule proves that they are shutting down nuclear power or at least stepping up and making sure that we aren't going to have more nuclear power in the future. so i ask my colleagues who are pro-nuclear, pro-energy to vote no on this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. matsui: mr. speaker, i want to make a point. this bill makes an investment in nuclear power and makes it clear that nuclear energy is a component of the overall energy mix. the bill provides $812 million for nuclear, $20 million above the f.y. 2009 level, and $51 million above the president's request. supporters provided for existing activities funded in f.y. 2009 and ensures this area
is included in our funding priorities. and with that i reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. scalise: i rise in opposition to this rule because 80% of the amendments that were brought forward on this bill were not allowed under this rule. and so clearly we're not operating under a transparent process. we're not operating under a process that is allowing the debate that i think americans want us to have on appropriation bills that spends their money. there were amendments that would have directed the corps of engineers that would base their flood protection decisions on the most safe options to protect our citizens and their property from future storms. that amendment was not allowed under this rule. there was actually an amendment to cut, and i know it's a word
that some people don't like over in this bill, to cut spending by $7 billion based on the amount of money that was added in the stimulus bill. and i think many of us on this side for sure, and i would hope some of my colleagues on the other side think the stimulus bill was a failed stimulus bill. $00 billion of new government spending at -- $800 billion new government spending at a time when our economy was in bad shape. those of us who voted against it said it would be a bad idea. that's why we proposed an alternative. and yet this steam roll that continues to spend money out of control went on and me passed this bill. there was an amendment that was proposed that would have cut the $7 billion in this department that clearly isn't working. instead of controlling the spending and allowing a vote on that, that was ruled out of
order under this rule. all of us that have looked and said, where are the jobs from the spending bill, that stimulus bill? no one can point to the jobs because we've lost jobs. since president obama took office, two million more americans have lost their jobs. and what is their answer? you would think their answer would be to say, maybe some of those republicans who had those alternative ideas might have been right, we'll work in a bipartisan way and talk to them and see what their ideas were because they were good ideas that would help small businesses, helped american families get back on their feet. and instead they were disguarded as ideas. maybe they would go back and look at those ideas again. but some people in the white house are suggesting a second stimulus bill, yet another massive spending bill at a time when the spending is what's hurting our economy. so we bring an amendment to cut spending and they rule it out of order in this rule. you know, maybe speaker pelosi and her colleagues are hoodwinking people. i hate to tell them, the
american people are watching and they don't like what they see. they see massive runaway spending. they see more jobs being lost. they see this energy bill, this cap and trade energy tax that would run millions of jobs to countries like china causing more americans to be unemployed and raising utility rates on every american family. the american people are watching this, and they're demanding action from congress, and that's why we're bringing these amendments to cut the spending and the -- mr. diaz-balart: i yield one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scalise: i want to thank my friend from florida again. that's why we're bringing these amendments. we're trying to solve the problems of our country and to propose different approaches, not massive spending, but actually ways to get americans back employed, ways to help small businesses survive during these tough times, ways to help middle-class families who are struggling to get back on their feet. and every time we bring these proposals, the liberal leadership on the other side says, no, we don't want to hear
those alternative ideas. we want to just keep spending money like there's no end in sight. well, there's an end in sight. and if you look just earlier this week we reached a hurdle that i don't think is a good hurdle. i don't think anyone should be proud of. it's an historic hurdle. this week, earlier this week our country exceeded $1 trillion in deficits during the course of a fiscal year. it was already exceeded this week, and we still have months to go in the fiscal year. so this is going to have a devastating affect on our economy, this massive runaway spending. and yet they bring a rule that closes debate, that closes the ability, 80% of amendments. i would urge rejection of this rule, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. ms. matsui: mr. speaker, i want to make ain't po. infrastructure spending on public projects in this bill will save jobs across america. infrastructure spending is also smart investment. exactly the kind of smart investment the american people want in congress to be making at this difficult point in our
history. the american society of civil engineers estimates the levee construction provides a 6-1 return on flood damage that's prevented when compared to initial investment costs. at the same time, our country's levees are crumbling and put be public health at risk. now is exactly the time to invest in this critical public good. with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. nathan deal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. deal: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to the rule, and the reason is that my colleagues and i from georgia offered an amendment that was not accepted in the rules committee. the amendment would have prohibited funds in this act from being made available to be used to update the calculation of the critical yield of the federal projects within the a.c.f. and the a.c.t. river basins before the development
of updated water control plans for the federal projects within this -- these river basins. the reason for the amendment was that language was included in the other body's version of this bill which requested that the critical yield updates be accomplished before the water control manuals themselves. the fact is that these control manuals need to be completed first by the corps before the critical yield studies can be finished. this is an important study and therefore should be done properly. although the critical yield updates are necessary -- are a necessary part of the manual updates, they do not provide any understanding of how water is currently being allocated or how the federal projects may best be managed. the corps of engineers must be allowed to determine the critical yield under appropriate conditions and our amendment would have made sure that they were able to do that. this language that is inserted
in the bill by the other body is not neutral in regard to the ongoing water struggle between our states. it arbitrarily prioritizes this particular study and diversities resources away from the corps of engineers that are needed in order to complete the much needed water control plans. and for that reason, since the amendment was not allowed by the rules committee, i rise in objection to this rule before the body today. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. matsui: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: also reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my good friend, ms. matsui, once again, for her courtesy and i want to thank all of my distinguished colleagues who have participated in this debate on the rule bringing forward to the floor the appropriations bill, energy
and water appropriations bill. i was particularly impressed by the arguments brought forth by mr. terry who explained, and i wasn't aware of it, how in the authorizing committee and quite frankly then in the appropriations committee there have been systemic attempts to limit, close down, debate really on developing, encouraging in a serious, comprehensive way, nuclear power for the nation. he reminded me of what i consider an unfortunate aspect of the you dogma of the left --
of the dogma of the left in the united states. curious is their opposition to nuclear power. not necessarily is that the case with the left everywhere. in france, for example, where about 80% of electricity is generated from nuclear power, governments of the left and of the right, the president, for example, was a strong supporter of nuclear power, as obviously was the president before him and now president sarkozy. left and right in france. have -- left and right in france have seen the critical importance of developing nuclear power. and the importance of reprocessing, which is what mr. terry was talking about. that ever since the carter years here we have limited, we have excluded in effect, that option.
so we're at a point now where we spend so much -- we use so much imported oil in this country to generate electricity. that's insane when there is a clean option, nuclear power, which requires reprocessing in order to really be effective, as demonstrated in france. and yet the dogma of the american left on that issue curiously does not make that option possible. let me ask, first, before i yield, how much time do i have remaining, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. diaz-balart: i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from, mr. wamp.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. wamp: just want to add to the gentleman's comments. this important issue of nuclear and its absence really in any impactful way in the legislation that comes before the house today. our country built its first 100 nuclear reactors in less than 20 years. today we know so much more about this particular industry. we are so much more technologically advanced. without question we could build 100 nuclear reactors in the next 20 years and we would lead the world in this particular energy technology again. and it's troubling because like the gentleman i've been all over the world and all these other countries look back and say, why wouldn't the united states, like japan and like france, take a lead on nuclear again so that they can show leadership on the reduction of carbon and this issue of climate change? that's the logical big step that we could take as a nation, yet
many of the people who oppose coal in this body also oppose nuclear and you cannot possibly achieve their own stated goals without it. and we could do this, talking about jobs and a stimulus? that should be step one, is a bold nuclear agenda where we reprocess the spent fuel, turn 80% of it back into energy and lead the world in the energy technology opportunities and industry in the world, the best chance for success is nuclear yet it's not advanced near enough in this legislation and i yield back. mr. diaz-balart: i thank the gentleman and, mr. speaker, reclaiming my time if i may and yielding myself the remainder of our time. it is a pillar of thought of the american left, opposition to nuclear power. i think it's evident. and the american left controls
the leadership of this congress. and it's unfortunate, as mr. wamp pointed out, because, and as i tried to point out earlier, in other countries left and right agree on the importance of nuclear power. it's clean energy that is available, readily available and safe to reduce dependence on oil . immediately. alternative sources are being developed and they're important. but in terms of significant substitution of oil with new sources, clean and reliable sources of energy, there's nothing that's available that can be more impacting and more effective than nuclear power. so it's a curiousity. as a student i study comparative politics, comparative law.
as a student of the left and the right in many countries i find it curious as to why it is, because it evidently is, a pillar of thought of the american left. opposition to nuclear power. but it's a fact. i will be asking for a no on the previous question, mr. speaker, so we can amend this rule and allow an open process. there is no question that the rule the majority brings forth today will help to cement the dangerous precedent that it set last month. it will further damage bipartisanship and comity in this body. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so we can uphold our tradition of allowing free and open debate on appropriations bills. if we do not do so, i think the
majority will regret their decision to close down the deliberative process of the house on appropriations bills. so, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. diaz-balart: and at this point yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlewoman from california. ms. matsui: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remainder of mipe time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. matsui: the rule before us today is a fair rule that allows us to highlight a significant appropriations bill. after seven hearings, the appropriations subcommittee on energy and water crafted an important bill that brings our spending priorities in line with america's vision for a brighter tomorrow. the bill before us invests in new technologies, scientific research and conservation efforts. it increases funding for the army corps of engineers and the bureau of reclamation, allowing them to continue their mission to improve our water infrastructure. the bill continues to invest in
the development of a new smart grid to ensure electricity delivery and energy reliability. and it makes a commitment to renewable energy and scientific research. the bill also continues ongoing nuclear nonproliferation efforts and rejects funding for the development of a new nuclear weapon. mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. all time having expired, the question is on ordering the previous question. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: we request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered.
members will record their vote by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of h.res. 645, if ordered, and motions to suspend the rules on h.r. 1044, h.r. 934 and h.r. 762. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: we request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having rizz aren, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 238, the nays are 135, the resolution is adopted, objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the yom from guam, ms. bordallo, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1084 -- 1044 as amended on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h r. 1044, a bill to provide for the administration of port chicago naval magazine national memorial as a unit of the national park system and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 413, the nays are three. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. on the last vote, the yeas were 415, the nays were three. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 94 -- 934, as amended. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 934, a bill to convey certain submerged lands to the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands in order to give that territory the same benefits in its
submerged lands as guam, the virgin islands, and american samoa have in their submerged lands. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 762, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 95, h.r. 762, a bill to validate final patent number 27-2005-0081, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their vote for this five-minute vote by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
what purpose. mr. grijalva: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 645 and rule 618, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 183. the chair appoints the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney to provide -- to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 3183, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending december 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered
read the first time. the gentleman from arizona, mr. pastor, and the gentleman will each control 30 minutes. mr. pastor: the house is not in ordered. the chair: members will take their seats and remove their conversations to the back room. the gentleman may proceed. mr. pastor: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pastor: it is indeed a privilege to submit to the house for its consideration h.r. 3183, the energy and water development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. the appropriations committee approved this bill unanimously by voice vote on july 8. this is a good bill that merits
the support of the entire house. i thank all the members of the energy and water development subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. this has been a challenging year with an extremely compressed schedule and i appreciate our members' attention and appreciation if in this accelerated process. i particularly want to thank the rnking member, my dear friend, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, for his extraordinary cooperation, insight, and friendship. mr. chairman, this is a bipartisan bill that represents a fair and balanced treatment of competing priorities. this is the way our constituents expect their representatives to work together, and i am proud of this bipartisan process. i also would like to thank the chairman of the appropriations
committee, mr. obey, and the ranking member, mr. lewis, for their support. i was given this assignment three weeks ago and without the great work of the scomme staff, we would not be here today system of today, this afternoon, i want to thank the staff of the subcommittee. the clerk, taylor butham, robert sherman, joseph levin, james wendell, casey pierce, rob blair, and kevin jones. they worked mr. hours through the weekends to get this bill today on the floor. i would also like to thank richard patrick from my office, ms. nancy fox, and katie hazel of mr. frelinghuysen's office. i want to acknowledge our
agency detailee, lauren meanto, from the corps of engineers. because of her assistance and her talent and her knowledge, we have put this bill together, these people have formed a great team and without their work, we would not be here today. i have to thank them again because their support has been invaluable. mr. chairman, this bill provides funding to address critical issues that affect our nation's security and prosperity from addressing high gas prices, our energy crisis, and climate change, advancing science and innovation, preventing nuclear proliferation, encouraging effective project management and investing in the activities of flood control and water
infrastructure projects. total funding for energy and water development iniscal year 2010 is $33.3 billion. this funding amount is a decrease of $1.1 billion from the budget request sand roughly equal to the current fiscal year. while the bill is below the budget request, the primary reason for this difference is a congressional budget office score of $1.5 billion for the department of energy's budget request for the innovative loan guarantee program. the bill provides $406 million above the budget request in program scope. this bill made a concerted effort to cut lower priority programs and apply the cuts to higher priority efforts. these spending cuts include 18
activities totaling $2.5 billion below the president's request. given the wide-ranging scope of issues in this legislation that are critical to our nation's well-being, i set forth the following priorities to ensure that our tax dollars will be spent wisely and effectively. these priorities include addressing high gas prices, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and confronting the energy crisis through increased investment in alternative domestic transportation fuels and new vehicle technologies. addressing climate change with sound investment in carbon sequestration, low emission energy technologies and science research. modernizing the energy sector
through research and development of renewable energy sources, efficient energy technologies, and novel electric grill technologies. confronting the terrorist nuclear threat by increasing the protection of our nuclear materials and accelerating the deployment of systems to detect such materials at border crossing points and ports. improving the security of our weapons by upgrading the protection of our facilities, as well as improving the training and equipment of the protective force. insisting that the president sub noit congress a nuclear weapons strategy and a nuclear complex transformation plan before congress will consider funding a new nuclear warhead. investing in dam safety, flood protection, hydropower modernization, and
infrastructure. that is esen torble water borne commerce on our -- essential to waterborne commerce on our islands and inland lakes, the safety of our citizens, and our economy. saving taxpayer dollars by improving management of programs, especially at the department of energy this bill provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the house . it funds the most worthwhile projects and programs near requested levels and it reduces some programs that are less valuable or less urgent. i urge my colleagues of the house to support it. thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey? >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is
recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: this is a good bill because it's a significant improvement over the administration's budget request and was put together in a bipartisan manner. before i turn to the contents of the legislation before us, like mr. pastor, i'd like to thank the fantastic staff, tonya butham, the clerk, bob sherman, joe wendell, casey pierce, on the minority side, rob blare, in my personal office, katie haslet, and rick plaqueton. all these individuals worked hard to put together the product before us, but no one has worked harder than mr. pastor, i want to thank him for his friendship and leadership and guidance on this bill. the gentleman from arizona is a pleasure to work with. i thank him for his leadership and his assistance.
plmp, the subcommittee's recommendation totals $33.82 billion which is $1.1 billion below the president's request, and $200 million over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. while the dollar amounts are significant, the issues contained in the bill are at the core of the nation's economic prosperity and national security, especially the energy portfolio and our historic responsibility for the reliability and protection of our nuclear stockpile and thus worthy of debate and amendment on the house floor. the bill was preceded by the american recovery and reinvestment act which gave more than $44 billion to the agencies under our jurisdiction. in fact, nearly $39 billion alone went to the department of energy. the department has nearly 1 1/2 times more money to manage even before we consider this annual appropriations bill. so our bill cannot be