Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just want to repeat once again that all this discussion has been on home heating oil for the Northeast. I know that is a major issue for people who live up in that part of the country, but this is being addressed already in another bill where there is funding in the conference report that is working its way through. That is the proper venue for this. I would like to make one other point because this is probably the first time that the issue has really been debated on the floor regarding the Strategic Oil Reserves. Part of the long-term solution, I want to emphasize the word ``long-term solution,'' is obviously to try to find more sources to get petroleum. That has not been talked about. It certainly was not talked about at all here in debate. I would like to cite one statistic. When we created the Department of Energy some 25, 30 years ago, it was a crisis. One of the reasons why we created the Department of Energy is, horror upon horrors, we were importing about one-third of our oil. So now here we are 25 years or so or more later and we are importing some 50 percent of our oil. I would just contend, if it was a crisis some 25, 30 years ago to have a cabinet-level agency to look at our energy policies when we were only importing 30 percent, it certainly ought to be something that we look at right now. Obviously, part of the long-term solution is to find more sources for oil. 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 have no more requests for time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, who is dealing with this legislation and somebody who is working on his last appropriations bill before he retires.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 598 is a rule providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water Appropriation Act of 2001. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. The conference agreement provides $23.59 billion in new discretionary spending authority for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy, and several independent agencies. The bill is $2.3 billion above fiscal year 2000, and $889 million above the President's request. Most notably, Madam Speaker, as a Member whose district includes the most challenging nuclear cleanup project in the Nation, I am pleased that the conference report increases the funding for the defense environmental management cleanup activities by $6.12 billion, an increase of $406 million over last year. Specifically, this legislation includes $377 million for the critically important Hanford Tank Waste Treatment Facility that is located in my district. Finally, I would like to point out to my colleagues that this conference report also includes an appropriation of $5 million dedicated solely to reducing the national debt. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their efforts to defend the House position on a long list of important items in this legislation. They have worked long and hard to bring this agreement to the House, and accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the conference report. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I 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. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 598 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 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 yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), the author of this bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 583 is a rule waiving all points of order against a motion to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 940, the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Act of 1999. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 940, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) would establish the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area in the State of Pennsylvania. The proposed area would cover a four-county region in the northeastern part of the State, which is a nationally significant historical area. The bill establishes an authority which would prepare a management plan for the area, which will be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval within 3 years of enactment of this legislation. The plan shall include recommendations for actions to be undertaken by units of government and private organizations in order to protect and interpret the historical, natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the area. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 940 authorizes the appropriation of not more than $1 million for any fiscal year and not more than $10 million in total for purposes set forth in this act. Finally, Federal funding may not exceed 50 percent of the cost of any assistance authorized in this act, and the authority may not use Federal funds received under the legislation to acquire real property or interest in real property. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 940 passed the House on September 19, 1999, and was passed with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by the Senate on September 18, 2000. The amendment merely makes several technical and clarifying changes and conforms to the management authorities for the heritage area to those approved for other heritage areas. Mr. Speaker, this measure is straightforward and noncontroversial; and, accordingly, I urge support for both the rule and H.R. 940. 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 distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the 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 583 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3986, and I want to thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, the preservation of salmon in the Pacific Northwest is one of my top priorities in Congress. I am convinced that we can save this national treasure while also preserving the jobs and quality of life in the Pacific Northwest. My legislation is just one example of the benefits that can be obtained for salmon by interested parties working together on the local level. Yesterday, this legislation received a majority of the House of Representatives under suspension but failed to garner the necessary two-thirds necessary for passage. It is my understanding, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) said, they have no objections to this legislation that went through the committee process and that was reported out by unanimous vote. However, yesterday the minority party chose to play politics over salmon recovery, and so we are returning here today to ask my colleagues for their continued support of this legislation. I was pleased, however, to receive support from three of my Democrat Members from Washington State, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Inslee and Mr. Baird, on the vote yesterday. They chose by their vote to choose salmon over politics. I appreciate their commitment to saving salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Very simply, this legislation authorizes a study of the feasibility of exchanging water diverted from the Yakima River for use by the Kennewick and Columbia Irrigation Districts for water from the Columbia River. The study would be conducted as part of the Bureau of Reclamation's Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, a series of projects authorized by Congress to improve water quality and quantity in the Yakima River. These two systems currently take their water from the lower Yakima River where flows have already been decreased because of upstream diversions. By taking water from a much larger volume of the Columbia River, the impact on threatened and endangered species would be significantly reduced. Specifically, this project provides the opportunity to increase Yakima River flows at the Prosser Dam during critical low-flow periods by up as many as 750 cubic feet per second. This approach will provide over twice as much flow augmentation as the previously approved electrification project and would completely eliminate the Yakima River diversion for the Kennewick Irrigation District. The new pump station and pressure pipeline from the Columbia River will be the cornerstone of a more salmon-friendly Kennewick Irrigation District. This project is a winner for both fish and for water users. It balances the need to improve habitat for threatened species while protecting water rights. Preliminary results from the lower reach habitat study indicate that these increased flows would greatly help salmon and bull trout. In addition, this proposal would provide substantial water quality improvements to the Yakima River. It is important to note that a change in the diversion for the Kennewick Irrigation District from the Yakima River to the Columbia River will completely change the current operational philosophy of the district. It will evolve from a relatively simple gravity system to one of significant complexity involving a major pump station and a pressure pipeline to the major feeder canals. This remodeling will have a significant impact on the existing systems and its users during construction, start-up and transition. That is why it is essential for the Kennewick Irrigation District to be in a position to develop these facilities in the way that best fits its current and future operational goals and causes the least disruption to the district water users. That is why this legislation requires the Bureau of Reclamation to give the Kennewick Irrigation District substantial control over the planning and design work in this study with the bureau, of course, having final approval. It is an approach that will continue local improvement and support which is vital to the success of this project and other projects. This legislation is noncontroversial, which is somewhat unique when you are talking about water issues within the Pacific Northwest. It is supported by a large coalition of Federal, State and local agencies and stakeholders. Amongst those are the National Marine Fisheries, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Yakima Nation, the Washington State Department of Ecology, the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Washington State Water Resources Association, American Rivers, and the Yakima Basin Board of Irrigators. I do want to say, too, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation highlights the ingenuity of local stakeholders coming together for a common purpose of saving salmon and preserving our way of life. I am pleased to report to the House that the effort before the committee today is one of many in my district. There are many that are going on in my district to further this goal. Specifically, I would like to mention my support for the efforts of the Columbia-Snake River irrigators who have outlined a water management alternative that will revitalize the salmon recovery efforts by optimizing fish production and the effective use of this region's financial resources. Their plan accomplishes this by protecting tribal treaty rights and ensuring their long-term stability. Finally, the plan recognizes the importance of State and privately held water rights to the economy of the Pacific Northwest. Another example of the local initiative for salmon recovery is the effort currently being undertaken by the Confederated Tribes of the Coleville Reservation and the Okanogan County Irrigation District up in the northern part of my district. These groups have taken a proactive approach to salmon recovery by conducting a joint study of water management efforts along the Salmon Creek and Okanogan County. Their joint efforts will result in the improvement of the fish passage and the habitat ensuring the preservation of salmon while protecting farmers and irrigators of their water rights. I would say, Mr. Speaker, this legislation symbolizes what can be done and what is being done in my district and in the Northwest to try to ensure salmon recovery by recognizing and respecting local people making decisions on a local level. I am pleased that this bill is in front of us again today. I regret that it got caught up in a bit of bipartisanship yesterday, but I would urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just reiterate again what I said in my opening remarks. The last time that my friend's party controlled the House, they had provided the Republicans with half as many bills under suspension as we have this year. 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, H.Res. 581 is a closed rule waiving all points of order against the consideration of H.R. 3986, a bill providing for a study of the engineering feasibility of a water exchange in lieu of electrification of the Chandler Pumping Station at Prosser Diversion Dam in the State of Washington. The resolution provides for 1 hour of general debate in the House to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. The rule further provides that the Committee on Resources amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3986 passed the Committee on Resources unanimously by voice vote on September 13. It was originally considered by the House yesterday under suspension of the rules. We are bringing this bill before the House again today because, although the bill was supported by a majority of the House Members, it did not receive the two-thirds support necessary for passage under suspension of the rules for reasons completely unrelated to the substance of the bill. We were told during debate on H.R. 3986 yesterday that Members who opposed the bill did so in order to express their frustration that more Democrat bills have not been considered by the House under suspension of the rules. On the surface, Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a compelling argument and a legitimate cause for concern. After all, Members in this body have every right to expect that they will be treated fairly regardless of which party is in the majority. The problem with the Democrat leaders' complaint, however, is that it is completely groundless. When Members examine the record of bills considered under suspension of the rules, here is what they will find: in 1993 and 1994, the last Congress controlled by the Democrats, we Republicans were given 11.8 percent of all bills on the suspension calendar. In contrast, during this Congress, we have given the Democrats 23.5 percent of the bills under suspension, which is fully twice as many. Mr. Speaker, I guess they are right. On this issue, we have not been fair. Actually we have been more than fair. Although we should not have to take up the House's time on this bill for the second day in a row, the partisan tactics of the leadership on the other side of the aisle has left us with no choice but to bring this bill back once again. The resolution before Members provides for a closed rule on H.R. 3986 only because we have taken more than enough of the Members' and the House's time on this measure and because Members on the other side of the aisle have indicated in the press that they would have supported this bill on its merits without any amendments had they not decided to make an example of us during yesterday's exercise in partisan finger pointing. To summarize, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3986 is a straightforward and noncontroversial bill. It provides funding for studies that we believe will ultimately serve the goal of saving salmon while protecting water rights, two important goals shared by people throughout the Pacific Northwest. That is why H.R. 3986 is supported by environmental groups as well as irrigators, Indian tribes and by local governments. Simply put, this is a common sense measure that has gotten caught up in the end-of-the-session partisan bickering here in the House that is of absolutely no interest to the citizens or the salmon living in my district. Frankly, both deserve better. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule on this bill and H.R. 3986 when it is considered on the floor of the House, hopefully for the last time, in just a few minutes. 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 distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Rules, 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. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 581 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I find this argument rather interesting, and I understand inside-the-Beltway politics, as far as getting your time on the floor, but on this bill particularly, I just want to make a point to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), because I know that he worked very hard on the original bill when it passed back in 1993 and 1994, and in my time in this Congress, I have heard the gentleman from California say it once and I probably dare to say I heard him say it a million times that we need to save the salmon, we cannot wait, we have to do it, time is of the essence on all of these issues. Mr. Speaker, here we have a situation where we clearly have a potential answer, and the remark I would say is that I do not think the salmon really care about inside-the-Beltway politics, but I do know that this issue has to be dealt with, and this is a proper way to deal with it. So notwithstanding the request on the other side, I would urge my colleagues to support this bill, because on its merits, from the standpoint of the environment, from the standpoint of saving fish, from the standpoint of expanding water quality, this meets to the ``T'' with strong bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3986. I thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as Members know, the preservation of salmon in the Pacific Northwest is one of my top priorities in this Congress. I am convinced that we can save this national treasure while also preserving the jobs and quality of life of Pacific Northwest residents. My legislation is just one example of the benefits that could be attained for salmon by interested parties working together at the local level. Very simply, Mr. Speaker, my legislation authorizes a study of the feasibility of exchanging water diverted from the Yakima River for use by the Kennewick and Columbia Irrigation Districts for water from the Columbia River. The study would be conducted as part of the Bureau of Reclamation's Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, a series of projects authorized by Congress to improve water quality and quantity in the Yakima River. These two systems currently take their water from the lower Yakima River where flows have already been decreased because of upriver diversions. By taking water from the much larger volume of the Columbia River, the impact on threatened and endangered species would be significantly reduced. Specifically, this project provides the opportunity to increase Yakima River flows at Prosser Dam during critical low flow periods by up to 750 cubic feet per second. This approach will provide over twice as much flow augmentation as the previously approved electrification project and could completely eliminate the Yakima River diversion for the Kennewick Irrigation District. A new pump station and pressure pipeline from the Columbia River will be the cornerstone of a more salmon-friendly Kennewick Irrigation District. This project is a winner for both fish and water users. It balances the need to improve habitat for threatened species while protecting water rights. Preliminary results from a lower reach habitat study indicate that these increased flows would greatly help salmon and bull trout. In addition, this proposal would provide substantial water quality improvements in the Yakima River. It is important to note that a change in the diversion for the Kennewick Irrigation District from the Yakima River to the Columbia River will completely change the current operational philosophy for the district. It will evolve from a relatively simple gravity system to one of significant complexity involving a major pump station and pressure pipeline to the major feeder canals. This remodeling will have a significant impact on the existing system and its users during construction, start-up and transition. That is why it is essential for the Kennewick Irrigation District to be in a position to develop these facilities in the way that best fits its current and future operational goals and causes the least disruption to district water users. That is why this legislation requires the Bureau of Reclamation to give the Kennewick Irrigation District substantial control over the planning and design work in this study with the Bureau having the final approval. This approach will ensure continued involvement and support which is vital to the success of this project. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this bill has been going through the process on both the Republican and Democrat side. When you talk about water issues in the Pacific Northwest, you tend to polarize people in different approaches. This bill and what it tries to do is unique in that it has broad support from virtually everybody involved in water issues in the Northwest. From the Bureau of Reclamation to the American Rivers, National Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Yakima Nation, the Department of Ecology within Washington State, the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Washington State Water Resources Council, the Yakima Basin Joint Board of Irrigation. If we put all of these people together in a room on any other water issues, we would be bound to have polarization. But on this one because it does have the potential of augmenting flows in a river that needs more flows and saving salmon, to me it seems it is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this. I want to thank the Committee on Resources for their work and support in getting this bill out of committee in a unanimous, bipartisan way.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am very aware of the problems facing the agricultural economy. It is abundantly clear that the prosperity of our economy as a whole does not extend to our farmers and ranchers. Although agricultural producers' problems are as diverse as the crops they grow, there is one point on which they all agree--the need for more export markets. There is no question that exports are already vital to the health of the agriculture sector. Approximately one-third of all the harvested acreage in the United States is exported, and 62 percent of these exports are of high value products. Is it any wonder then that farmers and ranchers suffer when exports decrease, as they have in recent years, falling from $60 billion in 1996 to $49 billion last year? Fortunately, we have effective tools at our disposal to enhance our nation's agricultural exports. The Market Access Program (MAP) is a program that works--and works well--without distorting world markets through export subsidies. How? By providing matching funds for commodity groups and small businesses to conduct market research, technical assistance, trade servicing, advertising and consumer promotions abroad. The American farmer produces some of the highest quality food products in the world, but we can't assume that every international consumer knows about them. MAP helps fill this education gap and allow our producers to create the new export opportunities so sorely needed by growers and processors. A prime example of how these programs work to benefit agricultural producers took place in my district earlier this month. The National Potato Promotion Board and the Washington State Potato Commission sponsored a tour and a series of briefings on processed potato products, and dehydrated potatoes in particular, for food industry research and development executives from the Philippines, China, Korea, Japan, and Mexico. These representatives learned about American potato products and how they can be used in consumer products abroad. This tour, partially funded by MAP dollars, will likely result in new opportunities to export value-added agricultural products. I believe that it is simple common sense to support this kind of successful promotion effort. That is why I introduced legislation to increase funding for MAP and the Foreign Market Development Program (FMDP) earlier this year. This legislation, H.R. 3593, the ``Agricultural Market Access and Development Act,'' authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to spend up to $200 million--but not less than the current $90 million--on MAP. Likewise, the bill requires that a minimum of $35 million be spent on the promotion of U.S. bulk commodities overseas through FMDP. These increases are funded using unspent funds for the Export Enhancement Program (EEP), usually around $500 million per year. EEP promotes U.S. exports through direct subsidies and is therefore subject to Uruguay Round restrictions and slated for reduction. Right now, foreign countries directly subsidize their agricultural exports and spend far more than the U.S. does each year promoting their products abroad. MAP and FMDP are the only programs that give our farmers and ranchers the chance to compete on a level playing field worldwide. These are proven and effective programs--and they are good for our producers. It's time to expand MAP and FMDP so that more growers can benefit from export opportunities. Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I rise in strong opposition to my friend's amendment to cut funding for the Market Access Program. We must work to open up opportunities to our farmers, not hamstring efforts to ensure agriculture success and independence. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and support a level playing field for American agriculture in the world market.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak briefly on the amendment previously offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), which was defeated by a voice vote. I urge my colleagues to also vote ``no'' on that amendment when it comes before us later on. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak specifically because the asparagus industry, while it is a small specialty crop, is very important in my district. Let me briefly walk through the asparagus industry. It is a small specialty crop. They assess themselves somewhere around a million dollars for research and market promotion and those monies are obviously spent wisely. But the problem they are having overall is that the foreign competition from other countries comes at a price to our domestic growers, because in large part they are subsidized by their governments. That has a negative impact on our asparagus industry, because harvesting asparagus is very, very labor intensive, and therein lies the crux of the problem. Now, I have talked to my growers in my district a number of times, and they said just give us a level playing field and we will compete with anybody because of the quality of their product. And I believe them. But one of the problems within the asparagus industry that is not new just this year, but going on some 20, 25 years and probably longer than that, is how one can harvest asparagus mechanically because it is very, very labor intensive. Part of this modest appropriation that was made to this industry was to find ways to reduce the cost of production through alternative production and harvesting. The key word here being harvesting. So this industry, simply being a specialty industry, is simply not large enough to fund the needed research, and this is a start to try to find what I tell my growers is the elusive automatic asparagus harvester. So I would hope that my colleagues would join me in voting no on the Hefley amendment, because this is the start where I think ultimately will be, and I cannot tell my colleagues whether it is going to be 1 year, 5 years or 10 years down the line, but with our ability to create technology in this country, I think we will find the means to find a way to harvest asparagus mechanically rather on a manual basis. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Hefley amendment when it comes to the floor later on when we come back to rolled votes. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, the Office of River Protection at the Hanford site in my district is currently engaged in the world's largest and most pressing environmental cleanup project. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the privatization account at Hanford was $450 million. However, due to recent developments, privatization is no longer a viable option at this time. In light of these developments, the Department of Energy has identified a new path forward to ensure the timely cleanup of the waste. As a result of this new path forward, the Department identified an updated funding requirement of $370 million instead of the $450 million for FY 2001 to fully fund the necessary design and long-lead procurement to keep the project on schedule. I would like to ask the gentleman if he will insist that the necessary $300 million of design and long-lead procurement needs for this project will be preserved during the conference with the other body.