Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I too urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. 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 Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 455 would grant H.R. 3671, the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000, an open rule, and waives clause 4A of rule 13 that requires the three-day layover of the committee report against consideration of the bill. Further, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Resources. House Resolution 455 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 further waives clause 4 of rule XXI that prohibits appropriations in a legislative bill against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. House Resolution 455 provides that the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution shall be considered as read, 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 House. House Resolution 455 waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report. The rule also allows the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Further, it 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 one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the Wildlife and Sports Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000, H.R. 3671, is a bill to enhance the use of funds available for grants to States for fish and wildlife conservation projects and to increase opportunities for recreational hunting, bow hunting, trapping, archery and fishing. The legislation accomplishes this by eliminating opportunities for waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement and unauthorized expenditures. The Committee on Resources held three oversight hearings examining the manner in which the Fish and Wildlife Service, through its division of Federal aid, administered and executed the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Dingell-Johnson Act. The hearings of the Committee on Resources made it clear that funds committed for the administration and execution of these programs had not been used for their stated purposes and that there was a general lack of fiscal accountability and management throughout the programs. H.R. 3671 stops wasteful spending and mismanagement of the wildlife and sports fish trust funds and allows more money to be distributed directly to the States for conservation programs. The legislation fixes what the GAO called, quote, ``one of the worst managed programs it had ever encountered by increasing accountability and restricting the administrative use of funds from the trust funds.'' Specifically, H.R. 3671 restricts the use of administrative funds reserved from Federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment to purposes directly related to the Pittman-Johnson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. Further, the legislation established 12 categories of authorized costs for the Wildlife Restoration Act and Sports Fish Restoration Act and provides that administrative funds will be available for one fiscal year, after which all unobligated funds will be returned to the States through the apportionment formula. H.R. 3671 also requires the Secretary of Interior to certify in writing the amount apportioned to each State and the amount obligated for administering those programs. In addition, the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act provides grants from the savings generated from the administrative changes in the bill to enhance firearm and bow hunter education and shooting range construction. The legislation also provides up to $2.5 million for the Secretary of Interior to make multistate conservation grants. Finally, the legislation requires increased accountability within the Fish and Wildlife Service, through certification of the use of funds and administrative restructuring. The Committee on Resources reported H.R. 3671 as amended by a unanimous vote of 36 to nothing last March. H. Res. 455 makes in order an amendment by the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) to increase the amount authorized to administer the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Dingell-Johnson Act to $7.09 million for each act, an increase of $5 million for each act with the reduction of these funds in later years. The amendment also makes certain technical changes and changes to ensure that the bill language conforms to language in the existing statute, language that is not amended by the bill. Finally, the CBO has estimated that enacting H.R. 3671 would have no net effect on the Federal budget. The Committee on Rules was pleased to grant the request of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for an open rule under H.R. 3671; and accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 455 and the underlying bill. 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 distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for 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 455 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill). (Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the reason that we are here at this point on the question before the House is whether we should consider this bill. I think, emphatically, yes, we should consider this bill; and accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion. The basis of the argument of my friend, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), is that this is an unfunded mandate. We are considering a Senate bill. I would like to read to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, a letter to Senator Frank Murkowski who is the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The letter is dated June 24, 1999 from Director Dan Crippen of the Congressional Budget Office and he writes specifically on the question of unfunded mandates, and I quote: ``CBO is unsure whether the bill contains intergovernmental mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, but we estimated that costs incurred by State, local and tribal governments as a result of the bill would total significantly less,'' and I want to emphasize this point, ``significantly less than the threshold established in the law, which is $50 million adjusted annually for inflation. ``Although this bill would, by itself, establish no new enforceable duties on State, local or tribal governments, shipments of nuclear waste for surface storage at the Yucca Mountain site, as authorized by law, probably would increase the cost to the State of Nevada of complying with existing Federal requirements. CBO cannot determine whether these costs would be considered the direct costs of a mandate as defined by the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. ``Additional spending by the State would support a number of activities, including emergency communications, emergency response planning and training, inspections, and escort of waste shipments. These costs are similar to those that the State would eventually incur under current law as a result of the permanent repository plan for Yucca Mountain. This bill would, however, authorize DOE to receive and store waste at Yucca Mountain once the NRC has authorized construction of a repository at that site and would set a deadline of December 31, 2006 for NRC to make that decision. This date is about 3 years earlier than DOE expects to begin receiving material at this site under current law.'' So, Mr. Speaker, there are some other safeguards within this act that address some of the costs that may be incurred and that obviously would be incurred by the establishment of this act, but the point is, it falls significantly below the threshold, as pointed out by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this question of consideration. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I urge Members of the House to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 444 would grant a closed rule for consideration in the House of the Senate bill, S. 1287, providing for the storage of spent nuclear fuel pending completion of the nuclear waste repository and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Commerce and one motion to recommit. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was originally enacted on the premise that the Federal Government hold responsibility for the permanent disposal of the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste. The need for subsequent legislation is based on three fundamental realities: First, the development of a permanent repository, originally scheduled to begin in 1998, but has been, unfortunately, derailed by past mismanagement and by political paralysis. Second, the nuclear waste fund financing mechanism needs some revision. And, third, the Department of Energy has requested authority to construct a Federal interim storage facility so that it can discharge its original responsibility. S. 1287, which the House will consider today, contains a number of specific provisions which the managers of the bill will outline in considerable detail during their general debate, but the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that by passing this bill, which has already been passed in identical form by the Senate, the House can now move forward on an issue which has been mired in gridlock for far too long. By passing this bill today, we will move S. 1287 to the President's desk and with one stroke of the pen we can finally stop stalling and instead begin facing up to our responsibility to the American people. Nuclear energy has long been a safe, clean and reliable means of generating electrical power that has fueled much of America's economic growth, but the nagging question about nuclear power, one that has remained unanswered for too long, is what will we do with the spent fuel that is produced at these plants all across the country? Today, the long awaited answer to that question is before us. Simply put: This compromise, while it may not be perfect, is a responsible plan that should be implemented without further delay. Accordingly, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support not only the rule, as reported by the Committee on Rules, but the underlying bill, S. 1287, so we can finally put the public's mind to rest on this critically important issue. 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 distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 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 444, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2372, the ``Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000.'' This commonsense legislation makes it easier for landowners that have had the use of their property taken by the Federal Government to get their day in court. While the fifth amendment requires the Government to compensate citizens for the taking of their private property, these property owners have found it almost impossible to gain access to the Federal courts to pursue their claims. Quite simply, H.R. 2372 would provide a way out of the regulatory limbo that requires property owners to seek a ``final'' answer at the local level before pursuing this constitutional issue in Federal court. Contrary to claims that the bill would circumvent local authority, it outlines specific requirements that claimants must pursue before receiving action from the Federal courts. These include an appeal to the local planning commission, an application from the local zoning board, and an appeal to the local board of elected officials. Thus, the bill protects local authority while ensuring that justice is done in a timely manner. Mr. Chairman, we in the Pacific Northwest are being inundated with new Federal requirements and restrictions relating to salmon and other species protected under the Endangered Species Act. The impacts of these new Federal actions on private property owners are only beginning to be felt, but promise to be significant. This legislation will ensure that the victims of Federal takings do not have to wait 10 years--the current average time it takes to get access to a Federal court--to seek just compensation. Private property owners in my district need to know that there is a clear and fair process in place for them to defend their fifth amendment rights. That is exactly what H.R. 2372 provides. I commend the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Canady, for bringing this legislation before the House and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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 advise the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) that I have no requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 439 would grant H.R. 3843, the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, an open rule waiving all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Small Business. The rule provides that the bill shall be open to amendment by section and authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. The rule also 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 one motion to recommit with or without instructions and lays H. Res. 432, providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 376, on the table. H.R. 3843 reauthorizes a number of worthwhile Federal programs established to assist small businesses all across the country. In addition to SBA's various loan programs, the agency's management training and entrepreneurial counseling have proven very helpful to owners and operators of the smaller firms that are responsible for creating the majority of new jobs in our expanding economy. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the bill makes a number of technical corrections to the 1958 Small Business Investment Act in order to increase the flexibility of the Small Business Investment Company program, and improve small business access to this program. Mr. Speaker, as a long-time small business owner myself, I know firsthand what an important contribution small businesses make to the economy and the quality of life in every community. Helping small businesses get started and continue to grow is important to all of us. The availability of capital and access to expert advice are among the greatest challenges facing our new business owners, and meeting those challenges is the heart of the Small Business Administration's mission. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the open rule reported by the Committee on Rules, and the underlying bill, H.R. 3845. 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 distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 439 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conference agreement on H.R. 1000, the ``Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century.'' I am especially pleased that the Conference agreement included 12 new perimeter rule exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. As a representative from the State of Washington, my constituents will directly benefit from this common sense provision to ensure fairness for all Americans. It is essential that the Department of Transportation ensures that this new service is evenly distributed among carriers and cities to make certain that the maximum number of communities benefit from these new flights. Mr. Speaker, it is especially important that small and midsize communities gain improved access through hubs such as Salt Lake City. We must guarantee that these important slot exemptions are not simply accessed by a few large cities for non-stop point-to-point service, so that citizens living throughout the West will benefit from these much needed slots via connections at Western hubs such as Salt Lake City. Currently, many passengers from small and medium-sized communities in the West are subject to double and often triple connections in order to reach Reagan National Airport. Adding new service from hubs like Salt Lake City will improve service to the nation's capital for dozens of cities throughout the west. This supports the overall objective of the legislation, which is to improve air service to small and medium-sized cities nationwide. Once again, I thank you for this opportunity to underscore the need for a broad distribution of the perimeter rule exemptions. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and encourage the Department of Transportation to ensure the equitable distribution of the new service beyond the perimeter rule.