Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 539 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 539 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The resolution also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. The energy and water development appropriations conference report provides a total of $30.5 billion to fund the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Energy, Department of Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation and several independent agencies for the current fiscal year. The Bureau of Reclamation receives $1.1 billion to maintain and operate water infrastructure projects throughout the West. The Department of Energy constitutes the bulk of the bill with funding of $24.3 billion. This represents a decrease of $129 million from fiscal year 2005. Overall, the conference report represents a compromise between the House- and Senate-passed bills and deserves the support of my colleagues. Madam Speaker, included in this bill are a number of projects and provisions of importance to my central Washington congressional district. The Bureau of Reclamation's budget provides $1.5 million to keep pace with a Federal study looking to add more water storage in the Yakima River basin and the potential of the Black Rock reservoir. Water storage is critical to the farmers and communities in this arid part of our Nation, and this year's drought made clear the importance of finding solutions for creating additional storage. Funds were also provided for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue work to address the depletion of the Odessa Subaquifer on the Columbia Basin project, as well as needed improvements to the West Canal. Finding answers for farmers whose water supply is disappearing requires the active participation of the Bureau of Reclamation, and this bill continues the involvement that I was able to launch last year. The final conference report also provides $18 million for the Department of Energy's budget for the transition of Pacific Northwest National Lab scientists and capabilities into new lab space. The buildings in which the scientists currently work are located in the Hanford site's 300 Area and will be torn down in the next few years to clean up this contaminated area. The $18 million represents an increase of $10 million above DOE's budget request that I worked to add to make certain this effort remains on track and that construction activity can begin this year. Ensuring the new lab space is ready and available before cleanup of Hanford requires the destruction of the scientists' current lab space is a top priority of mine, and I will continue to work hand-in-hand with the leaders of Pacific Northwest National Lab to make this happen. This bill also funds the cleanup of the Hanford site. In February, I was disappointed with the Department of Energy's proposed funding for Hanford, and I have worked for months to restore some of that funding. I am pleased that this bill provides increases above DOE's requested budget for several important cleanup projects in Hanford, including the River Corridor initiative, tank waste retrieval, groundwater protection, preserving the historic B Reactor, and continuing the important safety and training work of the Volpentest HAMMER facility. There are very real cleanup successes being achieved at Hanford, and it is important to keep progress moving forward. This bill does, however, reduce funding for construction of the Waste Treatment Plant by $100 million, which is a reduction that DOE proposed. I have made my dissatisfaction with the situation created by the Department very clear, and I intend to keep pressing DOE to be open in providing answers on its plan for the Waste Treatment Plant. DOE has repeatedly stated their commitment to building and completing the vitrification plant, and we simply cannot afford to have a lack of information from the Department create further challenges for this project. Madam Speaker, this conference report comes to us with bipartisan support from the House-Senate conference committee, and I urge my colleagues to give bipartisan support for this rule and passage of the conference agreement. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of rhetoric thus far on the rule, and I suspect there will be a lot of rhetoric when we debate the bill; but there is one underlying thread here that needs to be mentioned. It was mentioned by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). That is that the Endangered Species Act needs to be updated. I came here 10 years ago, and this is one of the big issues that was very important to my constituency when I first ran. There was talk then about amending the Endangered Species Act, but there was no agreement at all. We did get a bill out of committee. Unfortunately, it did not go any further. But now we hear today that there is 90 percent agreement on the need to change the Endangered Species Act, but there is violent 10 percent disagreement on what those means should be. I contend that is huge, huge movement from where we have gone in 10 years. I do not know what the reasons are, but I expect the reasons are the inflammation of the existing Act. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the author of this bill, and somebody who has worked extremely hard on this for at least 12 years.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter). (Mr. OTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 470 is a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. The rule provides for 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources and waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. House Resolution 470 provides that, in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Committee on Resources print dated September 26 shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. House Resolution 470 makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. The rule provides that amendments printed in the report may be 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 the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Lastly, the resolution waives all points of order against amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instruction. Mr. Speaker, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act is one of the most important bills we will consider on species recovery and property rights this year. I commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and other members of the Committee on Resources and their staffs who have worked hard to bring this legislation to this point. The result of their efforts is a solid bipartisan bill that updates key parts of the Endangered Species Act and provides enhanced protection for property owners. For people of the rural West where I live, there are few more important matters than modernization of the ESA. Unfortunately, some of the most well-known examples of the ESA problems have occurred in my region of the country, the Pacific Northwest. For example, Mr. Speaker, the Northwest timber industry was decimated by the listing of the spotted owl 15 years ago, only to discover that today, the spotted owls have actually been endangered and displaced by other owls. Imagine if we had emphasized recovery then. How many family-wage jobs would have been saved and how many more spotted owls would we have today? Four years ago, water to family farms in the Klamath Basin in Oregon was cut off in the name of the sucker fish, when everyone knew there were other measures that would truly help species recover without bankrupting businesses and families. Every summer, in excess of $3 million is being spent per listed salmon. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that. Every summer in excess of $3 million per salmon is spent to spill water over dams, even though science and common sense tells us that there are better ways of species recovery. This is all the result of the Endangered Species Act becoming too driven by litigation and conflict. Simply put, this act is broken, and it is in need of updating. If we put off modernizing the ESA, it is not just the people of my region that will suffer. It is also the animals and plants that the ESA is supposed to protect that are the victims. ESA's record of recovery of listed species is abysmal. Less than 1 percent of the species listed under the act have actually been recovered. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, only 6 percent of the species are categorized as recovering. Each year, Federal agencies are spending more on paperwork, process, court cases, and lawyers and less on real on-the-ground recovery efforts. We, frankly, must reverse this trend. The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act puts the priority where it should be, on recovery. This bill will require agencies to complete recovery plans within 2 years of listing. These plans will require the identification of lands important for species recovery, in lieu of the cumbersome and litigation-driven critical habitat process. In addition, the bill authorizes collaborative recovery teams made up of a diverse group of stakeholders, including people with conservation expertise as well as those whose livelihoods are affected by environmental policies. Again, there is a fundamental shift here from confrontation and litigation to cooperation and recovery. It is long overdue. This legislation also offers important new tools for encouraging voluntary participation in species recovery efforts by private property owners. The ESA is currently written with its emphasis on punitive measures and regulation serves as a disincentive for any private property owner to provide habitat for a listed species. This legislation provides ``no surprises'' protections for land holders entering into habitat conservation plans with the government. In addition, this bill offers financial aid to those whose property has been restricted for conservation purposes. After all, species recovery is a national goal that benefits all Americans, and the cost of that effort should not fall solely on the shoulders of land holders. Another important improvement in the ESA that this bill would provide is strengthening the science and data used in decision-making. This legislation puts the emphasis on objectively quantifiable and peer- reviewed science. Stronger science and ESA information will result in our limited Federal resources going to where they will do the most good, while reducing instances of drastic Federal actions being taken on poor or limited data. These are the things that we should all be able to agree upon. H.R. 3824 is a solid bipartisan bill that will do much to bring this important law up to date. I again commend my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support both the rule, House Resolution 470, and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 470 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for clarification, I acknowledge that the gentleman from Oregon sent his amendment to the Committee on Rules. My point was during the markup of the rule, there was no attempt on the other side to amend the rule to make his amendment in order. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), a member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from Oregon that his amendment during the markup in the Rules Committee was not offered by either side to be voted on. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a valued member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 437 to establish a select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and the response to Hurricane Katrina. Madam Speaker, Congress has an important constitutional role to play in providing oversight to the executive branch and Federal agencies. But more importantly, Congress has a responsibility to the people we represent to investigate the preparation and response efforts to Hurricane Katrina and make recommendations on how we can better prepare and respond to disasters in the future. Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose the idea of a bipartisan congressional committee held accountable to the people and by the people who elect us. But, Madam Speaker, a bipartisan investigative committee held directly accountable by the people is exactly what is needed Because we never know when or where the next disaster will strike, it is vital that Congress move swiftly to investigate how local, State, and Federal governments, along with the private relief agencies, can better communicate with one another and coordinate the relief efforts. America must be better prepared to handle disasters in the future. Madam Speaker, I am saddened that hours after Hurricane Katrina rescue and recovery efforts began, lawmakers were publicly pointing fingers rather than focusing on how to help the victims. Clearly, clearly in hindsight there are things that could have been done better. Only now that victims have been rescued and their immediate basic needs are being met is it appropriate that an investigation of what happened begin. There is no question that Hurricane Katrina caused great devastation, the magnitude of which becomes more evident every day. But, Madam Speaker, one of America's greatest strengths is our long-standing tradition of pulling together in times of need. I am proud that in my home State of Washington, which is located 2,500 miles from Louisiana and the gulf coast, families are reaching out to help those affected. Communities are collecting food, clothing, and cash donations. For example, Washington apple growers have contributed truckloads of world-class apples to people living in Mississippi and the other hard-hit areas and throughout America. Families are opening up their homes, businesses are employing dislocated workers, citizens are traveling to the gulf coast region to help with recovery and rebuilding efforts, and schools are teaching children who have been displaced from their schools, homes, and friends. America has been challenged by natural disasters in the past, and we will no doubt be challenged by disasters in the future. Only by Republicans and Democrats working together in a bipartisan fashion will the best interests of our Nation prevail. Madam Speaker, there is much to be learned from this disaster. We must examine what worked, what did not, and what we need to do to be better prepared. The primary focus of this bipartisan investigative committee should be that we should begin to prepare for the disasters ahead and not to assign blame. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 437.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for publication the attached copy of the Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the House of Representatives for the 109th Congress. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct adopted these rules pursuant to House rule XI, clause (2)(a)(1) on May 4, 2005.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 394 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The resolution also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, there are few matters that we will consider this year as important as this comprehensive energy plan. As we are all know too well, our Nation badly needs an updated energy strategy. High oil and natural gas prices are causing stress on our economy by raising the price of energy on almost all consumer products, driving up costs for American families, and on job-creating businesses. Every industry from agriculture to tourism to manufacturing is negatively affected by high energy costs. We need to update our laws to reflect the changing global energy market, encourage conservation and energy efficiency, and to foster the advance of new technologies that make traditional fuels cleaner and make emerging energy sources more reliable and competitive. This conference report will do just that. This legislation reflects the fact the energy challenges we face today are complex, that no single approach is going to solve all of the problems. This comprehensive energy strategy takes a balanced approach. It includes incentives related to oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy, but also emphasizes conservation, energy efficiency and renewables. The energy plan updates and enhances the Energy Star Program, promotes the use of clean coal technology, clarifies the process for siting liquified natural gas terminals, encourages development of hydrogen-powered cars, and extends tax incentives for the production of renewable energy from wind, biomass and other resources. With respect to electrical power issues, this legislation includes consensus language providing for mandatory reliability standards for electric transmission to help prevent blackouts like we saw in the Northeast in 2003. It also encourages investment in transmission lines to eliminate bottlenecks in the electric grid. There are also important provisions providing for enhanced consumer protection against the kind of market manipulation we experienced in the west coast electricity market 4 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of areas that are particularly of interest to my part of the country, the Pacific Northwest. We depend on clean, renewable hydropower for much of our electricity consumed in our region; however, the relicensing process that non-Federal dams must go through is too cumbersome and needs to be reformed. It currently takes an average of 10 years to get through the relicensing, but often that can take longer. This energy bill provides for a much needed overhaul of this lengthy dam relicensing process, potentially saving ratepayers millions of dollars while ensuring protections for other river interests to remain in place. License applicants will now have the ability to propose alternative license conditions to those made by Federal source agencies. These more cost-effective alternatives will then be accepted, provided they are shown to provide the same level of environmental protection. This conference report also preserves regional flexibility in achieving certain national electric marketing and transmission goals. This reflects the reality of what works in many areas of the country, but may not work in other areas that have a hydropower-based system. This legislation strikes the proper balance on these and many other complex energy issues. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton )and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, for their perseverance and leadership in crafting this conference report. Mr. Speaker, it is time to take action to combat high energy costs and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Let us pass this balanced and bipartisan energy plan. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 394 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, 4\1/2\ years ago, President George W. Bush stood in this Chamber during his first State of the Union Address and said, ``We have a serious energy problem that demands a national energy policy. Our energy demands outstrip our supply. We can produce more energy at home while protecting our environment, and we must. We can produce more electricity to meet demand, and we must. We can promote alternative energy sources and conservation, and we must. America must become more energy independent, and we will.'' Today, Mr. Speaker, this rule brings before the House a comprehensive, bipartisan energy plan that will help us produce more energy at home while protecting the environment; produce electricity to meet increasing demand; and promote alternative energy sources and conservation. This energy plan will help America meet its demands of today while planning for the energy needs of future generations, and it will allow us to become more energy independent. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, House Resolution 394, and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 additional minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a member of the Committee on Rules.