Doc Hastings

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. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 163 is an open rule waiving clause 4(a) of rule XIII that requires the 3-day availability of the committee report against consideration of the bill. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. The rule makes in order as base text for the purpose of amendment the amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 which shall be open for amendment by section. The rule also authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, and lays House Resolution 156 on the table. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1157, the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act, would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide financial assistance to five States in the Pacific Northwest for salmon habitat restoration projects in both coastal waters and upland areas which support a number of important species of salmon. The bill was introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) in response to a request from the Governors of Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and California for a coastwide approach to protecting salmon habitat from a variety of natural and man-made threats. The bill authorizes $200 million for that purpose through fiscal year 2003 to be made available to the States of Washington, Oregon, Alaska, California, and Idaho as well as certain Native American tribes in the region. In order to receive funds, the States must submit a recovery plan to the Secretary of Interior with specific goals and time lines. The bill also authorizes U.S. representation on the Transboundary Panel of the Pacific Salmon Commission under the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985. Finally, the bill authorizes payments to the Northern Fund and the Southern Fund for fiscal years 2001 to 2003, as well as lump sum payments to retirees of certain international commissions. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting H.R. 1157 would cost the Federal Government $510 million over the next 5 years. Pay-as-you-go procedures would apply because the bill would increase direct spending, although less than $500,000. Finally, the bill contains no intergovernmental or private sector unfunded mandates. The Committee on Resources reported H.R. 1157 by a voice vote on May 16 of this year and has requested an open rule so that Members seeking to amend the bill may have an opportunity to do so. Mr. Speaker, those of us who represent districts in the Pacific Northwest are deeply committed to the cause of salmon restoration, and while we are determined to fully protect the rights of States and localities to chart their own destiny, we also believe that the Federal Government has an important role to play in this process. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and Members of the Committee on Resources have worked hard to approach the job of salmon restoration in a balanced and responsible fashion. While H.R. 1157 may not be perfect in every respect, the bill is an important step in the right direction and I do intend to support it. Accordingly, I encourage 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 gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 163 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I, like all my colleagues, was saddened by Joe's death, even though we knew that it was inevitable. But I had an opportunity to serve with him on the Committee on Rules for 5\1/2\ years, and if I were to describe Joe as simply as I could, he was a very courteous individual, and I think that was something that obviously was not made up. He had a great wit, and there are a number of times when we have these late night rules meetings that that wit would disarm tension, and it would disarm tension here on the floor. But I also discovered that he was very principled in his philosophy, but yet he was one who very much wanted to work together. I guess because of the job that we have here, there are a lot of people that draw impressions of all of us through how we communicate on C-SPAN. I recall before I was elected to this position, to Congress, that there was a show that featured Joe Moakley on C-SPAN. It went on for about an hour, and he would talk about his background, he talked about his philosophy, he talked about getting a Federal building here or there in his district, and I was struck by that program. I watched it the whole time. At that time, of course, I was not a Member of Congress, I did not think that I would ever be here. But I discovered when I got here that the Joe Moakley that impressed me with that show on C-SPAN was exactly the same Joe Moakley that was portrayed there. I think that is probably the highest compliment one can pay to somebody who was in politics for as long as he was, is that there was not anything phoney about him. Joe Moakley was Joe Moakley, and that is the individual that we will all miss.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 135 is an open rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 581, the Wildland Fire Management Act. The rule waives section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against consideration of the bill and provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Resources. The rule further provides that the bill shall be open for amendment at any point and waives all points of order against the bill. Finally, the rule authorizes the Chair 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, the Wildland Fire Management Act would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to use funds appropriated for wildland fire management in the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 to reimburse several Federal agencies for costs associated with the interagency cooperation required under the Endangered Species Act when managing wildland fires. In response to devastating fire seasons in 1999 and 2000, Congress appropriated $2.9 billion to reimburse funds borrowed by agencies for wildfire emergency suppression efforts, to rehabilitate and restore damaged lands and waters, to increase wildfire fighting readiness, and to provide State and local community assistance. Subsequently, however, the U.S. Forest Service requested legislation to clarify that funds appropriated under the National Fire Plan can also be used for reviews of fire management plans required under the Endangered Species Act. Accordingly, H.R. 581 was introduced by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) in February of this year, and it was reported favorably by the Committee on Resources without amendment on March 28, 2001. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting H.R. 581 would increase direct spending by $3 million in 2001 and decrease direct spending by the same amount in 2002. Because the bill would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. Members should also be advised that the bill contains no governmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that, consistent with the request of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the Committee on Rules has reported an open rule on this bill so that Members wishing to offer amendments may have every opportunity to do so. As the fire season out West approaches, those of us who represent western States are particularly aware of the need for a coordinated Federal approach to wildfire suppression. The gentleman from Colorado's bill would certainly advance that important goal. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 581. 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 Texas (Mr. Frost), 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 135 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership not only on this; but I would like to also add my congratulations to the gentleman, because this is his first budget. I think the budget that we will be voting on here soon is an excellent budget. It sets a blueprint really for well into the next century. We have heard that over and over again. But I think the gentleman has done an excellent job. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and also the underlying legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity as chairman of the Nuclear Cleanup Caucus to thank the gentleman from Iowa for working with me to increase the funding for the Department of Energy's Environmental Management Account. As the gentleman is aware, the administration's budget request falls well short of the necessary funding to meet the needs throughout the entire DOE complex. Specifically, at the Hanford Reservation in my district, the administration's budget request will jeopardize momentum at the Richland Operations Office and delay construction of the waste treatment plant at the Office of River Protection. Recognizing this shortfall, is it true that the budget resolution recognizes the urgent need for up to a $1 billion increase for the EM account and the cleanup at these former defense nuclear sites for the government to meet its legal, contractual, and moral responsibilities?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I would inquire if the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, would engage in a colloquy with me.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation. As a member of both the Committee on Rules and the Committee on the Budget, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman on the Committee on Rules, on a very fair rule allowing for open debate. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for a budget resolution that recognizes a need to rein in Federal spending while ensuring that our Nation's needs are met. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have crafted a resolution that will allow the Committee on Appropriations to responsibly allocate money to the subcommittees and to ensure that we maintain fiscal discipline throughout this whole process. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight one very important aspect of this resolution that affects many of us throughout the country. The Department of Energy's Environmental Management Program is at a critical juncture this year. I am pleased that the Committee on the Budget has highlighted the very real need for increased funding by including language that I authored, recognizing a need for approximately $6.65 billion for this program for fiscal year 2002. This language is a strong signal to both the Committee on Appropriations and the administration of the importance of the nuclear cleanup funding for fiscal year 2002. I encourage OMB to take a note of Congress' support for this program as evidenced by the pending passage of the budget resolution today and to provide funding as suggested by the report language. I am very concerned about recent reports that rather than increase the funding for this program the administration at least in appearance had proposed to cut this cleanup effort, but what we have seen in the past is a dramatic increase in cleanup success throughout the Nation as we focus more on cleanup and less on bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that because at the sites throughout the country we indeed have focused more on cleanup rather than just adding more people to the whole process. I am confident this trend can and must continue through continued funding for the PM program. A failure to fully fund this program will result in increased costs, delays and legal battles with States throughout the country that will further drain essential cleanup dollars away from the complex and simply delay progress. Many have highlighted the need for reform in the Department of Energy's management practices. I fully support this desire and pledge to work as chairman of the nuclear cleanup caucus to work with my colleagues and the administration to find ways to reform, continue to reform, the Department and ensure the program management's success. However, I do not think that we can afford to not fund the cleanup program which has both contractual and legal funding requirements while these reforms that are badly needed take hold. We must recognize that our field offices are enacting reforms and contract discipline successfully on their own and that we must continue to fund their needs this year, and as reforms are identified and implemented the additional savings be focused on this cleanup work. For example, at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in my district, and also throughout the complex but particularly here, the Department has recently completed contracts with most of the major contractors that are new commercial-type contracts. These contracts put an impetus on the contractor to deliver on their projects or lose their fees. This is a big departure from what has happened in the past. For example, one company in my district at Hanford agreed contractually to complete $2.5 billion worth of work for $2.2 billion through efficiencies and technology; and if they do not do that, they surrender their fee. I have to say this is a refreshing change to DOE contracting practice in the past and one that will greatly increase accountability throughout the complex. Further, by incentivizing contractors to save money by giving them a small percentage of the savings that they attain, we are finding ways to increase cleanup and reduce the cost to the American taxpayer. This new contracting structure must continue and must be expanded. However, without adequate funding, these contracts will be altered; and the American taxpayer will lose out on the benefits that they are entitled to. So, again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both of my chairmen, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for their work on this legislation before us; and I ask all of my colleagues to support the rule and the budget resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 89 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 327, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform. The rule provides that it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1. The rule further provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be open for amendment by section. 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 for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 327 is to facilitate compliance by small businesses with certain Federal paperwork requirements and to establish a task force to examine the feasibility of streamlining paperwork requirements applicable to small businesses. This bill is similar to legislation passed by the House in the 106th Congress but on which the Senate failed to act. However, this year's bill omits language contained in the earlier version which limited the imposition of civil penalties on small businesses for certain first- time violations. In addition, H.R. 327 requires the director of the Office of Management and Budget to publish annually in the Federal Register a list of requirements applicable to small businesses with respect to the collection of information by Federal agencies, so that small businesses can easily inform themselves about these requirements. The bill also requires that all such information be made available on the Internet. H.R. 327 would require every Federal agency to establish a single point of contact between the agency and small businesses. Finally, the bill requires each Federal agency to make additional efforts to reduce the paperwork burdens on small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. Mr. Speaker, as a longtime small business owner myself, I can assure my colleagues that this is a bill whose time has come. It is hard enough for most small businesses to comply with the paperwork requirements that they know about, but it is the requirements that we do not know about that can really come back to haunt us. Large firms have in-house accounting, legal, and reporting compliance personnel that are beyond the means of small businesses. I know firsthand the costs and difficulty of wading through time-consuming, duplicative, and sometimes unnecessary paperwork. Small business men and women should not have to sacrifice productivity in order to complete endless forms when paperwork requirements can easily be streamlined. For years small businesses have created the largest share of new jobs in our economy. We should act today to reduce their paperwork burden so that they can continue to do so. Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 327 was not reported by a committee, no official cost estimate is available. However, the Committee on Government Reform did receive a preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office which stated that the bill, and I quote, ``would result in minimal costs for Federal agencies each year because the bill would not affect direct spending or governmental receipts. Pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.'' Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 327. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for 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 yielded is for purposes 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 89 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the author of the underlying legislation.