C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, the motion to go to conference is basically a routine motion. We need to get to conference on this supplemental. We have military operations, training activities, we have readiness issues ready to close down if we do not provide the additional money that is needed. Much of the money that has been used already from the fourth quarter accounts of the military have gone to pay for things like higher fuel costs, like all of us will have to do at the fueling pumps, to pay for medical expenses that have already been incurred by members of the military, their families and retirees, that have already been incurred but have not been paid. They need to be paid. There are other items included in this conference, and time is extremely important. I suggest that we should get on with moving this bill into the conference so that we can actually sit down with our counterparts in the other body, have the conference, and have a supplemental bill ready to report back to the House early next week.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I offer a motion.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2216) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would say to the gentleman that his understanding is correct. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of the subcommittee, developed a bill that was within its 302(b) allocation as set by the Committee on Appropriations. However, the bill as reported from the committee included an amendment, which I opposed, by the way. This amendment included additional spending that really should be mandatory and under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. However, the Committee on Appropriations adopted this amendment, which would provide an additional $150 million in emergency funding to assist apple producers. Some Members expressed concern over the emergency designation, which in effect would increase spending above the level assumed by the budget resolution, so that designation will be eliminated from the bill by the rule before us at the present time. As a result of this action, the total funding in this bill will be $150 million over the 302(b) allocation. However, the Committee on Appropriations has not exceeded our 302(a) allocation as set by the Committee on the Budget. I want to assure the gentleman from Iowa and Members that it was not the intent and it is not the policy of the Committee on Appropriations to present a bill that is in excess of its allocation. It is simply the fact that after extensive discussions with the leadership, the Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on the Budget, it was determined that the most expeditious way to resolve the matter and get this bill on the floor was the elimination of the emergency designation.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to enter into such colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, the gentleman's understanding is correct. It is the intent of the Committee on Appropriations to address this matter the next time it meets to consider revisions to the allocations by increasing the 302(b) allocation for this bill to a level equal to the amount this bill as passed by the House and to reduce other allocations for outstanding bills by the same amount. The committee does not intend a wholesale reprioritization of the budget to address this matter. We are also somewhat limited in our options because we have already passed three bills out of the House. It is not the intent of the Committee on Appropriations to reduce the 302(b) allocations of bills previously passed by the House to accommodate this spending in the agriculture bill. However, this does not mean the committee is precluded from a later reallocation as we work on these bills with the Senate during conference deliberations. Further, I would say to the gentleman from Iowa that it is my intention that the defense allocation will be preserved and maintained. Defense will be made whole. We will ensure that the allocations are adjusted to be in conformance with the Budget Act and that our bills are consistent with their allocations. I want to assure the gentleman that we will fully abide by the provisions of the Budget Act.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, several days ago I suggested to the House that this might be coming, this little bit of warfare between different delegations; and I had hoped that we would avoid that, because we have enough problems with our foreign suppliers. We have enough problems, that we do not need to have problems within our own country. The fact is that we do need more production of oil and gas, whatever types of energy we can produce. We are a consuming Nation, and we need to produce. But most of the conversations today have not been about this amendment. I have enjoyed the debate, except for one part. I did not really appreciate the debate of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) when he attacked the Florida delegation, because most of the Florida delegation has been there every step of the way to produce more energy at home, rather than relying on foreign sources. So I thought that attack was a little bit out of order. However, the great debate about where we are to drill or not to drill has nothing to do with this amendment. This amendment merely strikes three lines out of the bill. Let me tell you what those lines are: ``Provided further, That none of the funds made available to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in this or any other Act may be used to authorize construction of the Gulf Stream natural gas project.'' That is the amendment, to strike that language. Here is why we ought not to be so exercised with each other. The issues are these: the permits to authorize the construction of this pipeline have already been issued. You are not going to change that, unless you are going to change the basic law. You are not going to change that with this language. The amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) to strike this language is fine, and I am going to vote for it; but the fact of the matter is, this whole debate is really about nothing, because those permits have already been issued. It has been a good vehicle for the debate on the question of Lease 181 and the issue of who drills and who does not drill. We have to be together on this. To divide this Congress, to divide this House over this issue, is not a smart thing to do. We need to calm down the rhetoric and need to get about becoming energy independent from the rest of the world.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) also spoke of his love for the pristine beaches of the west coast of Florida, not just the northwest. He favored all of our beaches yesterday in that debate.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). This is the gentleman's first year as a chairman of a Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, and he has done an outstanding job. The gentleman came as a seasoned Member. The gentleman took over this very important role as chairman of the subcommittee, and he not only has produced a good bill, but he produced it in record time. Although, he is a new chairman, he was the first one with a markup, and I congratulate the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I also congratulate the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking minority member, who worked very well in partnership to produce a pretty good bipartisan bill. As usual, there will be some differences, as we proceed, and proceed we will, but I will urge Members to support the bill and be very logical and realistic as we approach the issue of amendments. Now, on the subject of amendments. We are trying to accommodate Members, as I announced yesterday, to assess where we were in the afternoon and see if there was some way to get Members out of here at a reasonable time this evening. It is pretty obvious we cannot complete consideration of this bill today, so I see no reason to go on into the late hours of the night or the wee hours of the morning. However, in order to arrive at a reasonable adjournment time today, it is going to be necessary for Members to be willing to limit some debate, to agree to some time limits, which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I are working on this very minute. Also, I would like for the Members to know that if Members have an amendment that they would like to have considered on this bill, it would be a good idea if they would advise the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) or the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on that side or myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) on this side so that we can put those potential amendments into the list of the universe of amendments that we have to deal with. We will be better able to manage this bill if we can do that. I put Members on notice that it would be a good idea to do that as soon as possible.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those comments. We are working hard. Now, if we get the cooperation of the membership, we can accomplish quite a bit of consideration on this bill today and still get us out of here at a reasonable time, and we will talk about that time a little later once we see what the universe of amendments will be for today. With that, again, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I only do so to advise the House what we are doing. After the approval of this unanimous consent request, we will go back to the Committee of the Whole and we will have the votes that were rolled to this time. At the conclusion of that time, I believe we are to deal with the amendment of the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) briefly. At that point then, the subcommittee chairman will move to rise; and we will have concluded the business for the day. We will return to this bill the day after we return from our July 4, Independence Day recess. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would expect that it would be first, and I know of no reason why it will not be first.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this bill would be considered on the day after we return from the recess.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 176) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman would yield further. As we discussed yesterday on this subject, we will very likely plan to go late tomorrow night, but also as we discussed, we would not go beyond midnight, or a reasonable time in the evening, if it appears that we have no opportunity to conclude the bill. Mr. Speaker, I doubt that we will be able to conclude the bill on tomorrow. I would suspect the House could work its will for an earlier departure.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Let me state just briefly that the plan will be to convene the house at 9 o'clock in the morning. We will conclude the consideration of the appropriations bill for energy and water. At the conclusion of that bill, we will then begin the rule and the bill for the agriculture appropriations. We will proceed into the evening on the agriculture appropriations bill on tomorrow, Thursday, and at a reasonable time we will make a determination as to how late we will go tomorrow night. The gentleman is correct that, as I announced with the approval of the leadership yesterday, Members can expect that there will be no votes on Friday.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to congratulate the chairman of this subcommittee. He and the ranking member have done an outstanding job in bringing disagreements together to agreements. They have a good bill. There will be some differences that we will be discussing here later this afternoon, but they have done a really good job. They have worked together very well in a good bipartisan fashion, and they have produced a bill of which both the chairman as well as the ranking member can be very proud. The staff of the subcommittee, too, have done yeoman's work. I take this little extra time, Mr. Chairman, to say that one of the conversations that we will probably have this afternoon will have to do with energy. We have enough problems with energy because of our heavy reliance on foreign sources. We have problems with those foreign sources on occasion. We cannot afford to have any energy wars here at home with each other. So we need to be careful how we approach all of these issues so that we do not get into a battle with ourselves over energy. A major industrial Nation like the United States, which is a large consumer of energy, must also understand the importance of producing energy, because if we totally rely on energy sources from abroad, we will find ourselves in real tight spots on occasion, which we do on occasion. So when we get to those issues later today, let us understand that we are all on the same team, and that we are not going to start any energy wars between one section of the country and another; that we are going to work together to work out what is right and best for the people of the United States of America, who are energy consumers. But again, I wanted to say that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee, has done a beautiful job with this bill with the help of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and it deserves the support of the Members of the House. I hope that we can do that expeditiously and move on to other matters. Mr. Chairman, we will be filing the Agriculture Bill this afternoon and hopefully will have it on the floor tomorrow. The subcommittees have marked up two more appropriations bills this morning, so we really are moving quickly. We got off to a late start because we received our specific numbers and budget justifications late, but we are catching up, and we are catching up pretty effectively.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the subcommittee chairman, for doing a really good job on this bill, as I have said earlier. I must say that I really appreciate his commitment to Florida's beaches. I know that he will have many opportunities to help support Florida's beaches and protect them in their pristine condition as we go through the various appropriations processes. Seriously, I really do appreciate that support. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and in favor of the committee position. The committee thought about this. The subcommittee thought that we should review this issue, and we did. The reason that we have a formula of Federal-State partnership is for the same reasons we have a partnership for highways. We have a Federal- State-local formula for building highways and maintaining highways, because people all over America use highways, all over America. People from all over America use beaches, wherever they might be in America. We have heard the arguments about the economic effect, the economic impact. We have heard the arguments about the pleasure-seeking people who go to the beach to swim and get out into the sun and have a good time, and all of those are good, solid arguments. There is more to it than just that. The fact of the matter is that having a good beach protects the infrastructure of the community. Now, I live in a community where we have water on the Gulf of Mexico on one side, water from Tampa Bay on the other side, water from Boca Ciega Bay goes right up the middle, but we have a lot of waterfront. I can tell my colleagues when we get a hurricane in Florida, in my part of the State, most of the damage comes from the high water that pounds against the sea wall, that pounds against these structures. The better beach that exists, the less damage we have to the infrastructure. I have seen roads and highways washed out because there was no beach to protect against that hurricane tidal surge. So it is important that we not only have the economic effect, the tourist effect, but the effect of protecting the infrastructure of the communities. Now, the formula was established by law. We should not be changing the formula in an appropriation bill. If the gentleman wants to change the formula, the gentleman should go to the appropriate authorizing committee and offer a bill. I can understand the concern of the gentleman from Colorado, because he has a lot of beach, but he has no water, and a beach without water does not really cut it, and it does not really have the same problems of those of us that have beaches with water. So anyway, it is a good debate, and we did consider it seriously, but I think it is important that we stick with the committee and vote down this amendment. It maybe well-intentioned, but it is not a good amendment. Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. States and communities in my district and all over the nation have already entered into binding beach renourishment contracts with the Corps of Engineers with the 65 percent federal/35 percent local cost share formula in place for projects authorized before January 1st of this year. In fact, the current funding formula has been specifically authorized by Congress. It would be grossly unfair to suddenly require these states and municipalities to put up almost twice as much money as had already been agreed upon to protect their beaches and their tourist economies. Supporters of this amendment claim that shore protection funding only benefits ``resort communities.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is, our nation's beaches contribute to our national economy, with local communities just the tip of the iceberg. Four times as many people visit our nation's beaches each year than visit all of our National Parks combined. It is estimated that 75 percent of Americans will spend their vacations at the beach this year. Beaches are the most popular destination for foreign visitors to our country as well. The amount of money spent by these beach tourists creates a huge tax benefit, most of which goes to the Federal government. That tax revenue each year is more than 180 times the Federal share of shore protection projects annually. I understand my friend from Colorado's sincere desire to control federal spending. However, I think he is taking the wrong approach here. Decisions like this should be made in the authorization process, and not on preexisting contracts. If the supporters of this amendment want to further change the formulas, then I suggest that they work with the authorizing committee. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman is correct. It is our intention if, in fact, we are able to take up the agriculture appropriations bill that we will do the best we can to complete it Thursday night; but we will not go into, as has been referred to so many times, the dark of night to try to finish it. We would try to finish it at an early time. We will not go into 2:00 or 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. The gentleman is correct, the majority leader has agreed that there would be no session on Friday; that we could complete the agriculture bill, if necessary, when we return.