Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Ohio that is offering this amendment, but on this one I think he is wrong. I want to associate myself with the ranking member and the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture but specifically with the ranking member when he made the observation that we are in a global economy. I think that is the issue that we ought to be focusing on when we talk about agriculture in general. There has been a great deal of talk in the past as we enter into these trade agreements with the President with the trade promotion authority of putting the ag sector at a much higher level than it has been with the past trade deals. That is what we have to keep in mind, because I believe agriculture as a whole in the past has gotten the short shrift on these past trade agreements. There has been criticism of this program in the past where it has gone to big corporations. That was changed back in 1998, and now the principal beneficiary of this MAP program are specialty crops. Specialty crops by definition do not have the great deal of support behind them to market their products. My district is full of specialty crops. To some, it may be big industry, but they are specialty crops, like apples. The apple industry uses this immensely. The potato industry in the Northwest, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, use this to market their raw products and their processed products. The hop industry, which is very small in my district but large nationwide, uses this overseas, as does the cherry industry. They are all the beneficiaries of this program. I think as we go forward with these trade initiatives that the President is talking about in other areas this is a tool that the ag sector can use, and now is the time I think to continue funding. As a matter of fact, the farm bill authorizes more than what we are appropriating in this bill. We recognize the tight budget conditions, but I think this program is important. I urge my colleagues to reject the Chabot amendment and support the MAP program.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I have one speaker left. So if the gentleman is prepared to close, I am.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the gentleman is in violation of House rule XVII, which requires that a Member's remarks in debate shall be confined to the question under debate, and ask to be heard on my point of order. Mr. Speaker, House rule XVII, pertaining to Decorum and Debate provides in part that when a Member desires to speak or deliver any matter to the House, they shall on being recognized confine themselves to the question under debate. To quote from section 948 of the House Rules and Manual: ``Debate on a special order providing for the consideration of a bill may range to the merits of the bill to be made in order, since the question of consideration of the bill is involved, but should not range to the merits of a measure not to be considered under that special order.'' Mr. Speaker, nothing in this rule or the bill it makes in order has anything to do with what occurred on the floor yesterday afternoon. Therefore, I urge that the Chair uphold this point of order against this irrelevant debate.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the author of this legislation and one who has been a leader on this issue.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 711 is a modified closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2828, the Water Supply Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. The rule also waives all points of order against the bill, provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and waives all points of order against the bill as amended. The rule further provides for consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report and accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) or his designee. Said amendment shall be considered as read and shall be separately debated for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2828 was introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and passed by the Committee on Resources on May 5, 2004, by a voice vote. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement badly needed water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water supplies. As is the case if many parts of the West, considerable controversy has arisen over allocation of water from a vast network of rivers, marshes, wetlands, and open water known as the California Bay-Delta. This area covers 780,000 acres and supplies water to two-thirds of California's population and nearly 7 million acres of farm land through a series of pumps, canals, and dams operated by the Federal and State governments. The competing demands for Bay-Delta water have stretched the resources capacity to provide reliable amounts of water to users and the ecosystem and cause conflicts among farmers, urban water contractors, and environmental groups. The California Bay-Delta program, known as CALFED, was initiated in 1995 to resolve these water conflicts. Although a record of decision for the current CALFED program was issued in 2000, legislation to implement that program has yet to be enacted by Congress. H.R. 2828 establishes within the Office of the Secretary of the Interior an office of the Federal Water Resources Coordinator to be responsible for coordinating the activities of all Federal agencies involved in implementing the activities authorized under this act. The bill directs the Secretary to undertake a competitive grant program to, one, investigate and identify opportunities for studying, planning, and designing water resource activities; and, two, construct demonstration and permanent facilities to further these purposes as well as other programs, projects and activities. The bill also authorizes the Federal agencies to participate in the CALFED Bay-Delta program in accordance with the objectives and solution principles that will be set forth in the Record of Decision. In addition, H.R. 2828 authorizes the Secretary to establish a program for the construction of rural water systems in the reclamation States in cooperation with other Federal agencies with rural water programs as well as non-Federal project entities. Mr. Speaker, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2828 would cost $427 million over the 2005 to 2009 time period and $65 million after 2009. These amounts do not include the cost of constructing four new water storage projects authorized by this bill because construction would be begin after 2009. CBO estimates that the Federal share of those additional construction costs could range from $200 million to $400 million over the 2010 to 2020 time period. Enacting this bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. H.R. 2828 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on the State, local, or tribal governments. Mr. Speaker, those of us from western States in particular are acutely aware of the importance of providing adequate water supplies in ways that protect sensitive environmental resources. Indeed, this is among the most challenging areas of domestic policy that we have. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and his colleagues on the Committee on Resources for tackling this difficult issue in a way that strikes a reasonable balance between economic development and environmental protection. This bill is badly needed and long overdue. So accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule 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 711 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to transfer lands along the Cle Elum River in Washington. This legislation will transfer about 400 acres of land along the Cle Elum River in Washington state from the Secretary of Agriculture to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. The bill also provides for a subsequent land exchange involving a portion of these lands--about 40 acres--with a neighboring private landholder. This land is part of a larger tract that was acquired in the 1930s by the U.S. Reclamation Service to construct Cle Elum Dam and Reservoir. The land was in turn transferred to the Forest Service in 1966, after the Interior Department concluded it was no longer needed for Reclamation project purposes. The legislation I am introducing completes the cycle of returning a portion of the property back to Interior, and a smaller portion back to private ownership. This legislation enables a public-private partnership to develop much-need infrastructure and simplifies property boundaries. This legislation enjoys the support of local elected officials and many local organizations, businesses. I ask that you please refer this legislation to the proper committee for consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove the requirement that 20 functional categories be included in the annual budget resolution, and grant the Budget Committee the discretion to include such categories, if any, as they deem appropriate. With this change to the 30-year old Congressional Budget Act, we can properly return debate to the ``big picture,'' macroeconomic budget issues that were intended to be the focus of the budget resolution when the act was passed in 1974. Annual budget debates have been bogged down in recent years by often bitter disputes over funding for scores of Federal programs within these 20 budget functions. This has become an enormous distraction for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and harmed the process of making rational decisions about overall Federal fiscal policy. The 20 functional categories are intended to illustrate how the Federal spending could be allocated under the budget resolution. However, the functions do not direct how much money is eventually spent for programs covered by each specific function. Function totals also do not specifically mandate how the Appropriations Committee makes allocations to its 13 subcommittees. Yet, despite the reality that these functions have no real power over actual spending decisions, every year tremendous time, energy and resources are dedicated to influencing the levels of particular functions. Interest groups mobilize and massive lobbying efforts are undertaken to try and affect often very slight changes in functions' totals and in budget report language. Yet, at the end of the day, these efforts do not effect the spending and taxing decisions the Congress will make later in the year. This is a severe distraction from critically important budget questions that deserve attention and clear debate. In the midst of the debate over how much to spend on this program, or that program or in this function or that function--what can get lost are the most fundamental matters of what the budget is going to look like: How much is the government going to spend next year? How much is going to be collected in taxes? Will the government's budget be in balance? Or will there be a surplus or deficit? How do all of these affect the public debt? I believe we must clear away the distractions that have overtaken the budget process. The first step in the annual budget process in Congress should be discussion and reaching agreement on overall spending, tax and debt levels in a budget resolution. We must be a real handle on the federal budget and the macroeconomic factors that the budget resolution is designed to guide and over which it actually has control. Decisions on spending on individual programs do not need to be debated twice--once during consideration of the budget resolution and again during open debate on Appropriations bills. As the fiscal challenges that our Nation will face with the effects of a retiring Baby Boom generation, it is more important than ever to focus our budget decisions in a manner that best directs attention to the critical choices we face today and the effects they will have on our children and the country's future. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue, and it is one that needs to be debated as we can see by the debate that we have had here simply on the rule. We expect a more vigorous debate as the issues are presented and as amendments are offered. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Committee on the Budget and also a leader on budget reform. (Mr. HENSARLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, I would respond to my friend from Texas, our committee has to make a lot of difficult decisions sometimes with the number of amendments that are brought in. Sometimes we have to make choices that are going to disappoint some Members. My friend from Texas has been here, and I confess that maybe he has been disappointed more than once.