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 would advise the gentlewoman from New York that I have no requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 532 provides an open rule for consideration of H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. The resolution waives clause 4 of rule XIII, requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report and requiring a 3-day availability of printed hearings on a general appropriation bill against consideration of the bill. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives clause 2 of Rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, and clause 5(1) of rule XXI, prohibiting a tax or tariff provision in a bill not reported by a committee with jurisdiction over revenue measures, against provisions in the bill. The bill further provides that the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate time in the reading of the bill, 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. The rule also waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report, and authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides on a motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the subcommittee, are to be commended for their efforts on this legislation. H.R. 4733 appropriates funds for civil projects of the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, most of the Department of Energy, and several independent agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The bill appropriates $21.7 billion in new budget authority, which is $546 million more than fiscal year 2000, but $952 million less than the President's request. The vast majority of the bill's funding, $17.3 billion, goes to various programs run by the Department of Energy, such as cleanup of nuclear waste on a number of Federal facilities, including the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in my district. The bill also allocates $4.1 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and $770 million to the Department of the Interior. The funding in this bill is necessary to protect important investments in our Nation's water and energy infrastructure and to maintain and operate the wide range of facilities and programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. As a Member of Congress from the West, I am particularly aware of the importance of these projects. Therefore, I commend the members of the Energy and Water subcommittee for their effort on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4733. 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 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, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 532 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that commitment. The gentleman's assurance certainly gives me and my constituents in central Washington, and for that matter all of us in the Pacific Northwest, confidence that the final legislation will contain the full funding that has been identified for the work that is required this year. Finally, I wish to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) personally for all the efforts the gentleman has given on behalf of me and my constituents in my district. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and wish the gentleman the very best in his retirement.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am very much in favor of this amendment. The previous remarks that were made by the gentleman from western Washington (Mr. Dicks) and by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) was that this land had to be under Federal ownership. That is exactly right. But let me tell my colleagues about what happened in my district with the latest monument that was created. Those lands largely in the early 1940s were under private land; but because of the Second World War, the Government took them over. Now, the Hanford Reach runs through that area. For those of my colleagues who do not know, the Hanford Reach is the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River. The issue, the people will talk about the Hanford Reach and say we need to protect it for spawning reasons. Well, this Congress already acted on that. In 1995, we passed a bill to prevent any dam building, any dredging, any channelling of that river. So the spawning beds are already protected. What we are talking about is the lands surrounding the river. Now, there has been a lot of discussion on this, and there are different ideas. My idea is an idea that is proposed by a citizens committee that worked for nearly 2 years coming up with a management plan that is in opposition to a one-size-fits-all Federal plan. What they came up with is a shared plan that involved the Federal Government, that involved the State government, involved the local government. It allowed for local decision-making for the people that live and work and recreate in that area. But with this action of the monument, with this action of the monument, all of this work is taken away. As a matter of fact, this monument designation for the Hanford Reach is more likely, more extreme than any bill that had been introduced addressing this issue in the time that I have been in Congress. So I think, frankly, it is a slap in the face to those that live and work in that area. I think that the amendment of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) is exactly the right amendment, because what we are talking about here, as the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) pointed out, is an abuse of power and process by this President in designating monuments. This is a classic example of how that has happened because the people in that area came up with the plan.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I just simply want to make this point, because the basis of the argument of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has been on the salmon, and the implication of his argument is such that only the Federal Government can make the right plans. My question to the gentleman, since the gentleman used to represent that district that I now represent, is the gentleman aware of the Vernita Bar agreement, which is a local agreement between the local State and Federal Government that has enhanced the salmon runs? In fact, we are now seeing the benefits of that. Because I think the gentleman probably is aware that the spring chinook run coming back to the Columbia River is higher than it has ever been since they started keeping records in the mid-1950s.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend from Eastern Washington for all the work that he has been doing on this issue. I do enjoy working with my friend from western Washington. We have worked on a lot of issues together that is obviously important to my district. I do appreciate that very much. But on this issue, obviously there is a basic difference as to how we should approach our economy and our resources in our given area. It is an honest difference of opinion, I think. What I find very interesting in the arguments that I have heard heretofore from my friend from western Washington and my friend from Oregon, they were saying that if we do not like this process by going through the appropriation process, we ought to use the authorizing process. I have always been a proponent of that, but I would make this point very clear. ICBEMP was never authorized. It was done at a time in 1993 when that side of the aisle controlled both houses of the Congress and for some reason they felt that they did not need to authorize this project. It was put in an appropriations bill and now we are living with the consequences of something that has grown from $5 million now to $56 million. It has kind of grown like Topsy and it has grown in scope, too. Let me make a couple of points that were made by those on the other side as far as their arguments. In his opening remarks, my friend from western Washington was saying that in the planning process, the ICBEMP provides more certainty and it does not take planning out of the local jurisdictions. I would just make this observation. This ICBEMP as it has been expanded in this time period covers some 105 counties in those seven States. Not one of those counties has passed a resolution in support of ICBEMP. In fact, to the contrary, 65 of those counties have passed resolutions in opposition to ICBEMP for the very reason opposite of what the gentleman said, they are concerned that this affects their planning process. Again, this seems to be a pattern from this administration that we will have these meetings that has been mentioned a number of times, but at the end of the day we are not going to listen to the concerns of those at the local level. That seems to be a pattern over and over and over. What are the reasons why? I can state one of my large counties in my district, why they are concerned about the Federal Government doing this planning and governing in one area, in the northern part of my district in Okanogan County. They are concerned about how the Forest Service is addressing the issue of noxious weeds. They are not addressing the issue of noxious weeds in the forest land. That is going over into the private lands and it is putting a burden on the taxpayers in that area to fund the noxious weed board. That is just one example why they have a concern about the Federal Government taking over this planning. Finally, I would like to as far as the resource part of it make this observation, because the Endangered Species Act has been a threat, that if we do not do this, the Endangered Species Act is going to preempt everything, and we will end up in a bad situation. I would make this observation, that unless we listen to the local people that are affected, we are going to be in worse shape than we ever possibly think we could. Because it seems to me the implicit idea or thought process of this administration is to not trust those that are elected at the local level to make decisions. I find that, frankly, wrong. There is another example in my district where local people have worked together trying to comply with the Endangered Species Act as it is written right now through the HCP process. That was signed a couple of years ago by the Chelan and Douglas County PUDs. It still has not gone through the whole NEPA process yet, but they are very confident that if they go through that process, they can live to the letter of the law with the Endangered Species Act. I for one, by the way, think that the Endangered Species Act ought to be changed, but in the letter of the law they can. Why? Because this is local people working together to come to a solution. But ICBEMP, the way it is structured and what we have seen does not allow for that to happen. Finally, from the regulatory standpoint here with my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. This area that we are talking about is largely an agricultural area. There is no huge urban area like Portland, Oregon or like Tacoma or like the Bay Area in California. There is no large urban area like that. It is largely agriculture. If we do not know what the impact is going to be on the farm implement dealers or the farm chemical dealers or the food processors who are largely smaller businesses in that area, then we are not doing a service to those that are going to be affected. That is all that this amendment does, is to say, let us put everything into the mix and follow the law. After all, this is an unauthorized project. If the concern is that it goes for one more year, what is wrong with that, as long as we get it right? Because this will have a big impact on my constituents. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. I think it is the right thing to do in order to clarify where ICBEMP is going.

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, House Resolution 524 would grant an open rule waiving all points of order against consideration of H.R. 4578, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001. The rule provides one hour of general debate, to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides that the bill will be considered for amendment by paragraph, and waives clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill) against provisions in the bill, except as otherwise specified in the rule. The rule also waives clause 2(e) of rule XXI (prohibiting non- emergency designated amendments to be offered to an appropriations bill containing an emergency designation) against amendments offered during consideration of the bill. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendment in the Congressional Record. In addition, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce the voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if a vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 4578 is to provide regular annual appropriations for the Department of the Interior, except 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 Foundations of Arts and Humanities. H.R. 4578 appropriates $14.6 billion in new fiscal year 2001 budget authority, which is $303 million less than last year and $1.7 billion less than the President's request. Approximately half of the bill's funding, $7.3 billion, finances Department of the Interior programs to manage and study the Nation's animal, plant, and mineral resources, and to support Indian programs. The balance of the bill's funds support other non-Interior agencies that perform related functions. These include the Forest Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture; conservation and fossil energy programs run by the Department of Energy; the Indian Health Service, as well as the Smithsonian and similar cultural organizations. In addition, Mr. Speaker, as a Westerner, I applaud several limitations on funding contained in this bill. One, for example, would prohibit the use of funds for lands managed under any national monument designation executed since 1999. These lands are already in Federal ownership, and may still be managed under their previous land management status. For example, just last week the Clinton administration designated 200,000 acres along the Columbia River in my district known as the Hanford Reach, designated that as a national monument. This action pulled the plug on an extended series of negotiations among local, State, and Federal officials seeking to develop a shared partnership to manage the Hanford Reach for future generations. Instead, unfortunately, the administration chose to unlaterally assign management responsibility to these lands with the Department of the Interior. Unfortunately, that left State and local citizens and officials with no real role except to comment periodically on plans and decisions of Federal regulators. H.R. 4578 would prohibit the expenditure of funds to issue a record of decision or any policy implementing the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, or ICBMP, as we call it in the Northwest, unless a regulatory flexibility analysis is completed. This project amazingly enough started in 1993 without congressional authorization, and affects a huge area of the West, including 63 million acres of Forest Service and BLM lands in six States, including much of my district in the State of Washington. The administration appears to be rushing to complete this project before the end of President Clinton's tenure, and the committee is concerned that such haste will expose the project to high-risk litigation for failure to comply with the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. I applaud the committee's decision in that regard. I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the Members of this committee for their willingness to address both the Hanford Reach National Monument and the ICBMP project, two issues that are of great concern in central Washington. More generally, Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his tireless efforts to balance protection and sound management of our Nation's natural resources with the steadily increasing demands placed on those resources by commerce, tourism and recreation. Significantly, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and his colleagues have done so while staying within their allocation from the Committee on the Budget. That said, Mr. Speaker, this bill, like most legislation, is not perfect. Individual Members will no doubt take issue with one or more provisions of this bill. Those wishing to offer amendments should be pleased that the Committee on Rules has granted the Committee on Appropriations's request for an open rule. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support not only the rule but the underlying bill, H.R. 4578. 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 524 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the sponsor of this important legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the subcommittee chairman in charge of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 516 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. H. Res. 516 would grant an open rule waiving all points of order against the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3605, the San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Resources. It makes in order the Committee on Resources' amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment which shall be open for amendment at any point. The rule also provides that the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution shall be considered as read and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. It also allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during the consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 3605 is to establish the San Rafael Western Legacy District in the State of Utah, and for other purposes. The San Rafael region possesses many important historical, cultural, and natural resources that are representative of the American West. Its history includes influences from Native American culture, exploration, pioneering, and industrial development. The bill will provide important Federal protections, similar to heritage designation protections, to the lands designated in the bill. H.R. 3605 would require the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the National Park Service, to establish a legacy council to furnish advice regarding management, grants, projects, and technical assistance. It would authorize the Secretary to make matching grants up to 50 percent to any nonprofit organization or government unit with authority inside the legacy district's boundaries. The bill limits appropriations to no more than $1 million annually and $10 million in total. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the enactment of H.R. 3605 would cost $15 million over the 2001 to 2005 period. Pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply, and the bill contains no unfunded governmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. CBO estimates that some State and local governments might incur some costs as a result of the bill's enactment, but those costs would be voluntary. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Resources reported the bill by a voice vote and the Committee on Rules has granted a request for an open rule so that Members wishing to offer germane amendments might have the fullest opportunity to do so. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3605. 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 Ohio (Mr. Hall); pending which I yield myself such much 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, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to thank the chairman for his work on this. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, under the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request, the privatization account that we were alluding to at Hanford would receive $450 million. However, due to the recent developments that the gentleman mentioned with the lead contractor, privatization, unfortunately, 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 and updated funding requirement of $370 million for fiscal year 2001 to fully fund the necessary design and long-lead procurement to keep the project on schedule. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) whether he concurs with this.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. This issue is not confined just to my district in central Washington. In fact it is the whole Pacific Northwest. I would like to ask the gentleman if he will continue to work on the fiscal year 2001 funding level when we go to conference with the other body for the necessary $370 million of design and long-lead procurement needs for this project.

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