Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 216 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001. The rule provides 90 minutes of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority members of each of the following committees: the Committee on Science, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Resources. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It also provides that the amendment printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report accompanying the rule shall be considered as adopted and makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. The rule further provides that the amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an 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. Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions, and provides authorization for a motion in the House to go to conference with the Senate on the bill H.R. 4. Mr. Speaker, this morning we have an opportunity to advance the important work of securing America's energy future. Earlier this year when the administration's comprehensive energy plan was unveiled, President George W. Bush said, and I quote, ``America must have an energy policy that plans for the future, but meets the needs of today, and one that develops our natural resources and protects our environment at the same time,'' end quote. Thanks to extraordinary hard work by the members of four different committees, we have before the House today legislation that accomplishes both of these critically important goals. At a time when America's dependence on foreign resources of oil is at an all-time high and when domestic sources of energy are increasingly off limits, it is important, more important than ever, for this House to face the challenge of reversing these trends in ways that respect the public's understandable desire to protect our country's abundant natural resources. This bill does that. In addition to increasing our supplies of energy, we must continue to make even greater strides in the area of energy conservation, and H.R. 4 does that also. Greater support for energy-saving technology, as well as tax incentives and other measures aimed at encouraging energy conservation, are among the centerpiece provisions of this bill. I am particularly pleased that H.R. 4 includes support for the development of proliferation-resistant fuel for the next generation of nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy is a clean energy source that can provide substantial new electrical generation capacity without adversely affecting our air quality. And like hydropower and many other renewables, nuclear energy adds no additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Specifically, H.R. 4 authorizes R&D to develop a new type of fuel that may be recycled in order to reduce waste and radioactive life of spent nuclear fuel, while ensuring that this new fuel will be proliferation resistant. I believe it is imperative that the administration move ahead aggressively on this new initiative and that it seek to identify as soon as possible an appropriate facility such as, for example, Fast Flux Test Facility at the DOE's Hanford site, that could be used to test and evaluate potential new recyclable fuels. By including a promising new program to address one of the most substantial objections to additional nuclear power, the authors of this legislation should be commended for taking an important step toward the goal of securing America's energy future. Mr. Speaker, this is a large and complex piece of legislation reported by four different committees. In seeking to craft a fair rule for its consideration, the Committee on Rules considered a very large number of amendments proposed by Members of the House. My Committee on Rules colleagues and I are pleased to report that we were able to make in order 28 amendments to various sections of the bill. We are particularly pleased to have been able to accommodate almost all of the requests made of the committee by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader. In fact, on July 20, the minority leader and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), wrote to the Speaker requesting that when H.R. 4 was brought to the floor, that the Committee on Rules make in order seven specific amendments as well as a Democrat substitute to the bill. I am pleased to report that today, the rule before us makes in order fully five of those seven amendments requested by the minority leader and makes in order no Democrat substitute, simply because none was ever submitted to the Committee on Rules. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and balanced rule which will provide Members ample opportunity to consider a wide range of proposed changes to the bill. At the same time, it is a rule that ensures that the House can complete action on this important legislation in a timely manner in order to give the American people the balanced energy policy they need and they deserve. So accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both House Resolution 216 and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 216 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I think this is a good rule. It is an open rule that we typically have for appropriations bills. As was mentioned earlier, there was some criticism by members of the Committee on Rules not allowing some amendments to be made in order. I think what the Committee on Rules really did was protect the product of the Committee on Appropriations. Yes, there were some waivers in this; but essentially the will of the Committee on Appropriations was such that they went through their process and added some issues to this bill that required waivers. We gave them, and protected the product that they desired. 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, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), my distinguished colleague and classmate.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 183 is an open rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 2330, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2002. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule further provides that the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph, and that the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the rule shall be considered as adopted. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions in a general appropriations bill. Finally, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2330 appropriates $74.2 billion in fiscal year 2002 budget authority for agriculture and related programs through the Department of Agriculture and other agencies. This figure is $2.4 billion less than last year's appropriations, but $234 million more than the President's request. The bulk of the spending goes to food stamps, $22 billion; the Food and Drug Administration, $1.2 billion; child nutrition programs, $10.1 billion; supplemental nutrition for Women, Infants and Children, $4.1 billion; and the Federal Crop Insurance Program, $3 billion. In addition, this bill provides $1 billion for the Agriculture Research Service; $720 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service; and $946 million for the Farm Service Agency. Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased that the Committee on Appropriations has included $150 million for market loss payments for America's apple growers. As a representative of the number one apple- producing district in the Nation, I am acutely aware of the devastating losses sustained by apple growers in the past year. In our area, for example, countless warehouses, packing houses and other apple-related businesses have either shut down, declared bankruptcy, or downsized dramatically. In county after county, growers find that it costs substantially more to produce a box of apples than the market will pay to buy it. And, unlike many farms that can easily switch crops when prices are down for one commodity, apple growers cannot simply pull up their orchards and grow something else for a few years until apple prices go back up again. In the face of unfair competition from China and other Asian nations, our growers have few tools with which to fight back. Apple growers are an unusually independent breed. They have suffered ups and downs of the market for years without asking for any kind of Federal assistance that has long been common to other types of commodities and farming. But never before have we suffered the kinds of losses we are experiencing right now. For that reason, I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and their colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations for recognizing the dire situation in apple country and for providing this much-needed assistance. Madam Speaker, this is a fair bill. It funds a number of high- priority programs while cutting out wasteful, unnecessary and duplicative spending. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both this open rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2330. 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 gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 183 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for yielding me this time; and I want to congratulate my friend, the newest member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), on his first rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and this underlying legislation. I would like to begin by commending the chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), as well as the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), on their leadership in bringing this excellent piece of legislation to the floor. This is the first bill of the gentleman from Alabama as chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and I commend him on his openness and his support. They have carefully balanced the priorities in a very tight budget year to ensure that the cleanup of former nuclear sites stays on schedule. As chairman of the Nuclear Cleanup Caucus here in the House, I have been privileged to work closely with the committee this year to ensure that cleanup sites throughout the Nation continue their significant progress, ensuring that the legacy of World War II and the Cold War is cleaned up. While I have been supportive of the President's goal to cap the overall spending increase at 4 percent, I have to admit that I was deeply troubled by the administration's initial request on cleaning up the Nation's former nuclear weapons sites. Earlier this year, the Committee on the Budget responded to that by including in the congressional budget resolution language directing up to an additional $1 billion in the Environmental Management Account. I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations has, in the past 2 weeks, included an additional $880 million for cleanup in the supplemental and the legislation we will consider today. This will allow for the Federal Government to keep its legal and moral commitments to the communities that surround these sites. The Department of Energy has negotiated innovative contracts that mirror commercial practices to transform the cleanup program and ensure that more dollars are spent on cleanup. These negotiated contracts ensure that the American taxpayer receives more cleanup dollars for less by requiring efficiencies to do more with less. Without this additional funding for the Environmental Management program, these aggressive contracts would have had to be re-negotiated, thus eliminating the benefits to the taxpayer. This legislation will increase funding by nearly $700 million over the administration's request. This will reverse the proposed reductions at the major sites throughout the country. Specifically at Hanford the additional dollars provided in this legislation will provide full funding for the construction of the Waste Treatment Project. This is the home of over 60 percent of the radioactive waste of this country; and yet it is the only facility, Hanford, that lacks a treatment capability. It is essential that this project be fully funded in fiscal year 2002 in order to ensure maximum benefit to the taxpayer and the safety of the Pacific Northwest. Further, the legislation allows for the River Corridor Initiative to begin at the Richland Operations Office. This innovative approach will allow for the acceleration of cleanup along the River Corridor and will shrink the Hanford site from 560 square miles to 75 square miles by the year 2012. This is an aggressive schedule which will save American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over this time period. Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides the first step to what I hope will be the full transformation of this project to a closure contract in fiscal year 2003. Further, the legislation will allow for continued efforts to remove spent nuclear fuel which has been standing 100 yards from the Columbia River for 25 years, and to move it away from the river into safe storage. I would like to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for their excellent work. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the Nuclear Cleanup Caucus, the contractors and the stakeholders that came together in a unified manner to ensure that these increases became a reality. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. First, let me thank the chairman for his attention and detail to salmon recovery efforts and hatchery reform efforts included in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill. While these items are terribly important for the entire Pacific Northwest, there are a couple of additional items important to central Washington in my district, and I hope to see them addressed in the conference. One issue involves noxious weed funding in the Forest Service budget, and the other is related to ground water research in the USGS agency in regards to the Methow Valley.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 174 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2217, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of Rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the rule. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment by paragraph; it waives points of order during consideration of the bill against amendments for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of Rule XXI, prohibiting nonemergency designated amendments to be offered on an appropriations bill containing an emergency designation. Finally, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2217 provides regular annual appropriations for the Department of the Interior, except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and for other related agencies, including the Forest Service, the Department of Energy, the Indian Health Service, the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities. President Bush requested $18.1 billion for the fiscal year, $700 million less than last year's enacted level. The Subcommittee on Interior has allocated $18.9 billion. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes $200 million for the payment in lieu of taxes, the same level as last year, and $50 million above the President's request. I am also pleased that the committee has increased the level of funding for maintenance and operation of existing Federal facilities, an effort that should receive at least as high a priority as the acquisition of land; at least that is from this Member's perspective. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2217 was reported by a voice vote on June 13, 2001, and the Committee on Rules is pleased to report an open rule requested by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2217. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded 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 174 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 175) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation. Today, I would like to focus on the provisions within this bill dealing with nuclear cleanup. As the chairman of the Nuclear Cleanup Caucus, I have expressed clear reservations with the administration's initial budget request for this program. I am very pleased that they now have requested, and the Committee on Appropriations has included, $180 million in supplemental funding for this vital effort. Specifically, over $50 million of this money will provide a necessary bridge at the Hanford site for this fiscal year to prevent layoffs. I would hope that our field managers be provided with the maximum flexibility to mitigate shortfalls and reduce impacts with this money. The administration should be commended for including this money in their supplemental request. After submitting their initial budget, I have had multiple opportunities to meet with Office of Management and Budget Director Daniels regarding the legal, contractual, and moral obligation the government has to ensure the cleanup program stays on schedule throughout this Nation. Recognizing the shortfall in the administration's request, the congressional budget resolution provides for up to $1 billion in additional money for nuclear cleanup in fiscal year 2002. The inclusion of this money in the supplemental is the first step in fulfillment of that requirement. I would also like to commend the Committee on Appropriations for their commitment to environmental cleanup. Throughout this process, the Committee on Appropriations, and specifically the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), has worked with me and other caucus members to ensure that adequate funding is provided in fiscal year 2002. Yesterday's markup of Energy and Water appropriations to me is a great step in ensuring that this shortfall is eliminated. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) in the future to ensure that this funding is a reality. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this open rule and the underlying legislation.