Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3183, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3183, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (House of Representatives - July 15, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
The underlying legislation, the Energy-Water Appropriations Act, provides over $33.2 billion in funding for critical water projects. It helps to develop a cleaner, more dependable energy sector that is less dependent on unreliable sources of foreign energy. It also supports our national defense system by funding critical weapons and nonproliferation programs. The Water Resources Development Act of 2007, known as WRDA, authorized the deepening of the Miami Harbor to a depth of 50 feet. The underlying legislation follows up on that authorization with $600,000 for the planning of the dredging project. Reaching a depth of 50 feet by the time that the Panama Canal expansion is completed in 2014 is of both local and national importance. 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 deepwater 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, rich soils and subtropical temperatures traditionally supported a vast array of species. Flood control and reclamation efforts in the 1940s and the 1950s manipulated the Everglades' hydrology, redirecting fresh water destined for the Everglades out to sea. Its ecosystem was also harmed by degraded water quality. Pollutants from urban areas and agricultural run-off, including pesticides and excess nutrients, have harmed plant and animal populations. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which I strongly support, will capture fresh water destined for the sea, the lifeblood 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. 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 am pleased the Appropriations Committee agreed on the importance of this project by appropriating $210 million. I would like to thank Chairman Pastor and Ranking Member Frelinghuysen for their bipartisan work on the important underlying legislation that we're bringing to the floor today.
While I support the 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. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are 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 debate and for a vote and is not in the usual open procedure which allows every Member to offer their amendments.
During last week's Rules Committee hearing on the State 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 appropriation 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 the majority and the minority wish to accomplish. Ranking Member Dreier of the Rules Committee and I also 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 is sad.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mrs. 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, the Energy and Water appropriations bill.
I was particularly impressed by the arguments brought forth by Lee Terry who explained--and I wasn't aware of it--how, in the authorizing committee, and, quite frankly, then the Appropriations Committee, there have been systematic attempts to limit, close down debate, really, on developing, encouraging in a serious, comprehensive way nuclear power for the Nation.
It reminded me of what I consider an unfortunate aspect of the dogma of the left of 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 percent of electricity is generated from nuclear power, governments of the left and the right. President Mitterand was a strong supporter of nuclear power, as obviously was President Giscard, and then President Chirac, and now President Sarkozy. Left and right in France have seen the critical importance of developing nuclear power and the importance of reprocessing, which was what Lee 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 be really effective, as demonstrated in France. And yet the dogma of the American left on that issue curiously does not make that option possible.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield myself the remainder of my time.
It is a pillar of thought of the American left's 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 the significant substitution of oil with new sources, clean and reliable sources of energy, there is nothing that's available that can be more impacted or more effective than nuclear power. So it's a curiosity.
As a student, I studied 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 is evidently 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 so we can allow an open process. There is no question that the rules the majority bring 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 believe the majority will come to regret their decision to close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source