Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for including my amendment regarding the Office of River Protection in the en bloc amendment. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 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. I would like to first thank the gentleman for his leadership on this project through the creation of the Office of River Protection in the Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense Authorization Act. As the gentleman is aware, the Office of River Protection was created to manage the retrieval and treatment of waste at Hanford by removing the many layers of bureaucracy that impede cleanup and transfer authority back to the site. This model has proven itself to be an effective initiative because local experts have the knowledge and the authority to ensure the timely treatment of this waste.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman very much for his commitment. I thank the chairman for his commitment, also, on that. Their assurances to my constituents in central Washington and to all of us in the Pacific Northwest that the final legislation will contain full funding that has been identified for the work required this year is appreciated.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for that commitment. Finally, Mr. Chairman, section 3131 of the legislation provides a waiver of the requirement to accumulate a reserve for termination liability funding. Will the gentleman work with my office and with the Department of Energy in conference to assure that this section is clarified to meet the needs that we are talking about within the River Protection Project in the future?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today I am in support of repealing Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. While I certainly support the goal of enhanced immigration enforcement through better record-keeping at our nation's borders, implementing Section 110 prior to the establishment of a speedy automated entry-exit system will cause serious problems on the borders. Specifically, mandatory documentation will create massive traffic delays that would clog both the Northern and Southern borders, and obstruct trade and tourism nationwide. The Immigration and Naturalization Service does not have the technology in place to carry out the entry-exit system required by Section 110 without unacceptable delays at all border crossings. As a representative from the State of Washington, my constituents will be adversely affected by the implementation of Section 110. In 1999, Washington State alone exported close to $3 billion worth of goods to Canada. Applying Section 110 without adequate technology in place will create lines of waiting vehicles stretching several miles that would severely cripple trade, travel, and tourism between Washington State and Canada. Likewise, in 1999, Washington State had close to 5.5 million border crossings at its 5 border stations. Of this, over 300,000 crossings were at the border station in Oroville, Washington, which is in my district. Oroville is a relatively small community in Central Washington that is not equipped to handle the extensive traffic jams that would be caused by Section 110. The City of Oroville recently adopted Resolution 391, and I submit the resolution to be included in the Congressional Record. In the Resolution, the City of Oroville requests that Congress delay the implementation of Section 110 until the United States Attorney General has addressed and resolved the issues and concerns relating to implementation. Until technologies are developed to allow for extensive record- keeping at our border stations while ensuring timely border crossings, it is simply unreasonable to try and implement Section 110. Resolution No. 391 A resolution to urge the United States Congress (``Congress'') to repeal or delay the implementation of Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (``Act''). Whereas, Section 110 of the Act requires the establishment of an automated entry-exit control system at all airports, seaports and land border crossings to ``collect a record of departure for every alien departing the United States and match the records of departure with the record of the Alien's arrival in the United States''; Whereas, implementation of Section 110 will add to the congestion at international crossings and increase the size and amount of delays and holdups at border crossings; Whereas, delays and holdups at the border crossings will limit the potential for industry expansion and will have negative national and international economic impacts on efficiency, service and jobs; Whereas, trade and tourism between the United States and its North American neighbors has grown considerably since the enactment of NAFTA; Whereas, trade and tourism are becoming an increasingly important sector of both the local border economies and the national economy; Whereas, the World Travel and Tourism Council predicts that travel and tourism will ultimately account for 100 million jobs in this decade; Whereas, through steady, incremental efforts, current alien arrival and departure data collection and sharing systems at ports of entry may be improved in ways that will advance important national objectives including expanded trade, travel and tourism, enhanced national security and law enforcement; Whereas, future advances in data collection technology will enable federal, state and local governments and the private sector to increase the flow of goods and persons across our national borders. Whereas, the appropriate agencies within the Administration, through advances in technology over time, may be able to recommend to Congress how to improve alien arrival and departure data collection and sharing systems at land and sea ports of entry in ways that advance important national objectives, including expanded trade, travel and tourism, enhanced national security and law enforcement; Whereas, any such recommendations from the appropriate agencies should involve cooperative efforts between the public and private sectors including federal, state and local governments to ensure appropriate realization of these objectives; Whereas, the technology to collect the data required by Section 110 of the Act is not yet commercially feasible; Whereas, it is of critical importance that the data collection system created pursuant to Section 110 of the Act not interfere with the ebb and flow of goods and persons across our national borders. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by The City Council of the City of Oroville, That that City of Oroville urges the United States Congress to delay implementation of Section 110 of the illegal immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 until the United States Attorney General has addressed and resolved the issues and concerns of this resolution in coordination with the private sector and state and local governments. Passed this 2nd day of May, 2000. David K. Reynolds, Mayor. Kathy M. Jones, Clerk-Treasurer.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the distinguished Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 497 is a structured rule waiving all points of order against the consideration of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999. The rule provides 90 minutes of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. The rule makes in order the text of H.R. 4377 as an original bill for the purpose of amendment in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, which shall be considered as read. All points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this 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. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are waived. In addition, the rule permits 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 one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000 creates a mechanism by which the funds from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases are made available for offshore drilling mitigation, land purchases, historic preservation, wildlife conservation and endangered species recovery at the State, Federal and local levels. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act provides annual funding of $1 billion to coastal States to mitigate the impacts of offshore drilling, $900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is its fully authorized level, $350 million through existing Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs for wildlife conservation, $125 million for urban parks; $100 million for historic preservation; $200 million for the restoration and improvement of Federal and tribal lands, $150 million to protect farmland and promote the recovery of endangered species through the purchase of conservation easements; and it makes available up to $200 million in interest generated by these revenues to match appropriated funds for payments in lieu of taxes and refugee revenue sharing. While providing substantial funds for additional Federal land acquisition, the bill also requires for the first time that Congress specifically approve each new Federal land acquisition. The bill also includes a number of important new private property protections, including a requirement that all purchases, pursuant to the provisions of this act, be made from willing sellers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will result in a $7.8 billion increase in direct spending through 2005. An additional $3.7 billion in discretionary spending is authorized over the same period, subject to appropriations. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule that makes in order 26 separate amendments in order that Members who have concerns about H.R. 701 might have an opportunity to improve it. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support this rule. 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 497 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage), who has worked diligently in her time in Congress on these issues.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

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 am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Resources. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate what I am talking about with this amendment is for maintenance. It is not for acquisition at all. It is for maintenance. We already have the Grand Canyon. We already have Yosemite. We already have Rainier National Park. They are already in place. We are talking about maintaining these facilities. Now, I commend the gentleman from Alaska for at least putting some maintenance dollars in this bill. But here is the problem. We know we have about $18 billion of a backlog. We have about $180 million in this bill. If we were to appropriate that all of the way through this year, it would take us 100 years just to make up the current backlog. We cannot wait that long. We propose in this CARA bill to spend another, roughly, billion dollars for acquisition. We would add to that, obviously, the maintenance needs in the future. Mr. Chairman, we cannot wait that long. We have 100 years, for goodness sakes, just to take care of what we have. That does not make any sense at all. We have an opportunity because CARA develops a funding stream for these crown jewels that we are talking about. Some of that ought to go for maintenance. And that is all this amendment says. Obviously, if this money is put into the process, maybe we can reduce this and then those that support buying more land would have that land in the future. But is the first principle not to maintain what we have? That is what this amendment does, is simply says let us maintain what we have. We cannot wait 100 years just to take care of the backlog that we already have right now. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment because to me, it addresses the issue that the American people understand obviously better than we do, or it would be in the bill without having to go through this amendment process. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) control half of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this amendment that is offered jointly by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and myself. As the last several hours in this debate have made clear, fewer issues inspire a more contentious debate in this Chamber than Federal lands policy. There is, however, one aspect of the Federal lands policy on which I believe every Member of this House can agree. We simply must do a better job of maintaining our national parks, our wildlife refugees, recreation areas, and our national forests. Our constituents know, and so do we. Every one of us have heard about families from our district that have visited these natural resources and found shabby facilities and deteriorating conditions when they arrive at these places that are, in many cases, the crown jewels of our park and recreation system, this legacy that was entrusted to us by past generations. Yet, tragically, Mr. Chairman, the unfunded backlog of deferred maintenance work in this country at these facilities has reached the tens of billions of dollars. As a matter of fact, it is growing every year. Just 2 months ago, on March 21, this House voted 392 to 2 to underscore our concern about this backlog. Unfortunately, that vote was largely symbolic because it was a House Resolution and it committed no actual funds to address this problem. Tonight by voting for the Hastings-Regula amendment we can back up our rhetoric with real resources. Our amendment would provide a dedicated funding stream to meet the maintenance needs that have been deferred for too long, and it would do so without adding one penny to the bottom line on this bill. Simply stated, our amendment requires that for every dollar spent from the Federal share of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to purchase land, $1 must also be spent to maintain the lands that we already own. After all, to me it is just common sense to stop buying more of something unless one is ready to maintain what they already have. The Hastings-Regula amendment makes it possible to do both. Our dollar-for-dollar approach is a simple, straightforward, and balanced approach to at least one problem that the American people really do think that the Federal government should address. Whether one is from the East, West, rural, or urban areas, the public has consistently ranked maintaining parks and recreation facilities among the top priorities for public funding. Tonight let us show our constituents that their priorities are our priorities. Mr. Chairman, no Member of Congress has worked harder on this than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). I am honored that he joins me in this endeavor. I am sure his remarks will explain much better than I can the need for this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman from Alaska has the right to close?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I know that it is not in order at all for me to say this, but it is my mother's 86th birthday today, and I am not going to mention that in a formal sense. With that, 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, H. Res. 484 would grant H.R. 2957, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act, an open rule waiving clause 4(a) of rule XIII that requires a 3-day layover of the committee report against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule makes in order the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 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 time. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. In addition, the rule 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. 2957 is to coordinate and provide financial and technical assistance for water quality restoration activities in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. The Lake Pontchartrain watershed covers a 5,000 square mile area, including all or part of 16 Louisiana parishes and four counties in Mississippi. Since the 1940s, increasing population, urbanization and land use changes have adversely affected the basin, resulting in a number of serious environmental problems and declining health of the watershed. To address this problem, H.R. 2957 would establish within the EPA the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Program in order to restore the ecological health of the basin by developing and funding restoration projects and related scientific and public education projects. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing H.R. 2957 would cost $108 million over the 2001 to 2005 period, assuming appropriation of those authorized amounts. The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. Furthermore, the bill contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the open rule reported by the Committee on Rules and the underlying bill, H.R. 2957. 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 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. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 484 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today a Dear Colleague letter will be sent to all Members informing them that the Rules Committee is planning to meet the week of May 8 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process on H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, also known as CARA. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, May 8, to the Committee on Rules in Room H-312 of the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to the text of an amendment in the nature of a substitute which is available at the Committee on Resources and will be posted on their Web site by 12 noon tomorrow. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.