Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2828, Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act - Part I

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2828, WATER SUPPLY, RELIABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT ACT -- (House of Representatives - July 09, 2004)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes so we can talk about H. Res. 711 which is providing for the consideration of H.R. 2828, the Water Supply, Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act. I was kind of hoping the gentleman might yield me 38 minutes instead of the customary 30 minutes; but then again, he is not in the chair so he is not able to do that today.

Mr. Speaker, what happened yesterday on this House floor was a disgrace. And the Republican leadership who run this House should be ashamed of themselves. The majority Members who allowed that to happen yesterday should also be ashamed of themselves.

The gentleman from Vermont along with several of his colleagues offered an amendment to strike a controversial provision of the PATRIOT Act. This provision allows authorities to demand library and Internet records of people who use our public libraries.

Three years ago, Mr. Speaker, I voted against the PATRIOT Act because it expanded the authority of the Attorney General and the FBI without requiring any corresponding accountability. And yesterday I voted for the Sanders amendment because it protects the American people and our public libraries and book stores from the overreaching arm of the Department of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, the Sanders amendment won. And this deliberative body, in this place where democracy is the standard, the Sanders amendment won. And after 15 minutes there were 213 people voting for the amendment, and only 206 voting against it. That is a clear victory. One does not need a Ph.D. in mathematics to figure out that the Sanders amendment won, fair and square.

Yet the House Republican leadership held the vote open for 23 more minutes for a total of 38 minutes so they could twist the arms of their rank and file to change their vote so they could rig this vote. After these 38 minutes were over and the vote was finally closed, the vote was tied 210 to 210.

The Republican leadership did what they do best, they hijacked the democratic process and they did it. And they did it because they could, and they did it because they could get away with it.

What happened yesterday on the House floor was unique in only one respect, Mr. Speaker, and that is it happened in broad daylight. Usually, this heavy-handedness happens late into the night or in the early morning hours so that nobody is watching, so that there is nobody in the press gallery who was watching, so that people at home are asleep. So what happened yesterday was unique only in that one respect.

Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Republican majority have diminished the people's House. They have made a mockery of democracy, and they have demonstrated a heavy-handedness that is becoming all too common here.

Yesterday, once again, the Republican majority demonstrated an incredible arrogance toward the American people. They demonstrated an incredible contempt for the Members of this House, Members of their own party who they intimidated into changing their votes.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, they are unqualified to run this people's House. They have made a laughing stock of this place. They have turned this House into a national embarrassment. This is unacceptable. This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. And the American people need to know what is going on here. This is not a deliberative body anymore. This is not a place of democracy. This is not a place where people can debate ideas, where people then can vote, Members can vote and then the majority wins. This place is not being run the way it is supposed to be run. It is an absolute disgrace.

[Begin Insert]

Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses an issue that affects the State of California-the distribution of water from north to south, and other related issues unique to California. However, I am concerned with many of the provisions in the bill and their potential to impact all of us. Specifically, I'm concerned about a seemingly technical provision in this bill that could have far-reaching effects on how water is used in California and how we conduct our business here in Congress.

Section 103(b)(5)(A) of this bill grants an ongoing, rolling authorization to the Federal Bureau of Reclamation to plan and build water projects in the California Bay-Delta area. In plain English, this means that Congress would be writing a blank check to the Department of Interior to build as many billion-dollar dams in central California as they want, even if these projects end up harming the environmentally sensitive areas we say we want to protect.

Mr. Speaker, the way our legislative process is supposed to work is that Congress writes the laws and sets the policies about how and where our tax dollars get spent. The job of the executive branch is to implement these laws through the various agencies of the Federal government.

This bill sets up a process that turns the legislative process on its head. It hands over the Congressional power to spend public funds to an unaccountable Federal agency. It tells officials in the Department of Interior they can spend billions of the taxpayers' dollars any way they want and then, only afterwards, check in with Congress. And if Congress doesn't act in 120 days, the Department can continue on its merry way, spending billions of dollars on dams and other water projects that may or may not accomplish the objectives of the CALFED water agreement.

Supporters of this provision claim there are precedents for their so-called "non-project-specific authorization" language, but their precedents involve only small projects and small dollar amounts.

In the case of the CALFED Water Project, the public policy stakes are just too high for Congress to hand over our decision-making responsibilities to a Federal agency. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to make these kinds of decisions, and we shouldn't shirk those responsibilities by passing the buck to a Federal agency. The way the CALFED project is managed over the next 30 years will have a profound effect on the 35 million water-drinking citizens of the State of California, the State's agricultural industry, and some of our country's most fragile and endangered ecosystems.

And what about our responsibility to be careful stewards of taxpayer dollars? I constantly hear fiscal conservatives on the other side of the aisle complain about the lack of budget discipline. Prior to the recess, these fiscal conservatives led a charge trying to slow down Federal spending, and make it harder for Congress to spend taxpayer dollars. But this bill basically gives the executive branch a blank check to spend on potentially costly projects like dams and canals.

I hope that some of those same members join me today in expressing concern about a policy that allows an agency to "Spend the money first, then check in with Congress later." That doesn't strike me as a policy that will help us get out of the deep budget deficit hole-a hole that has been deepened by President Bush and this Republican Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this provision is bad policy and this bill is poorly drafted. I will vote against this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

[End Insert]

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

Mr. McGOVERN (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. McGOVERN. I would like to ask the Speaker how long he is going to keep this roll call open.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rules of the House provide for a minimum duration of 15 minutes.

The Chair would also advise the gentleman that at the moment, because this is the first vote of the day, the Chair is attempting to afford courtesy to Members. The Chair will continue to exercise its discretion and will let the Members know.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Speaker is offering this courtesy to Members in keeping the roll call open, but there will be no need to keep it open for too long because I assume the Speaker is aware that this time you are winning.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has failed to state a parliamentary inquiry.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to avoid today the travesty which occurred on the House floor yesterday, I am going to urge my colleagues at the end of this debate on the rule to vote no on the previous question so that I will be able to offer an amendment that will state very simply that during consideration of H.R. 2828, a record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of a vote.

So I will urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 ½ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to inquire of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), I will be closing on my side.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules will close on our side, so if the gentleman would like to close.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that there are no rules in this House of Representatives. Tradition and procedures of this House are routinely ignored. Members will be treated with disrespect, members even on the Republican side. This Republican leadership has diminished the people's House. It is shameful.

I appeal to Members on the Republican side to stand up to the bullying of their own leadership. This trampling of the rules and traditions of this House is not an isolated problem. It happens every day. And the only way it will stop is for good people to stand up and to say enough is enough.

I am urging Members to vote no on the previous question so I can offer an amendment which says simply that during the consideration of H.R. 2828, a record vote by electronic device shall not be held up for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of a vote. That is all it says. How can you be against that?

I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. Vote yes on my amendment to stand up with us for what is right. We know what happened yesterday was wrong. Show some guts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the RECORD immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

END