Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished 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, H. Res. 337 would grant a rule waiving all points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2466, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2000 and against its consideration. The rule further provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, the conference report to accompany H.R. 2466 appropriates $14.5 billion in new fiscal year 2000 budget authority, which is 599 million more than the House-passed bill and 236 million more than the fiscal year 1999 level; but it is 732 million less than the President's request. Approximately half of the bill's funding, 7.3 billion, finances Interior Department programs to manage, study, and protect the Nation's animal, plant and mineral resources. The balance of the bill's funds support other non-Interior agencies that perform related functions. These include the Forest Service, conservation and fossil energy development programs run by the Department of Energy, the Indian Health Service, as well as Smithsonian Institute and similar cultural organizations. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their ongoing efforts to resolve a large number of complex and controversial issues contained in this legislation. As it is every year, theirs has been a difficult task, but one that they have taken with the customary fairness and balance. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the conference report itself. 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 337 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon a ``Dear Colleague'' will be sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of October 25 to grant a rule for consideration of H.R. 1987, the Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement Act. The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which will require that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record. In this case, amendments must be preprinted prior to consideration of the bill on the floor. 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.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about one very positive element in this underlying bill, and I support the rule and the underlying bill and would like to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from New York for their efforts on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, on the night of September 7 in Pasco, Washington, tragedy struck when a Washington State Patrol Officer, James Saunders, was shot and killed in the line of duty while making a routine traffic stop. The suspect in the shooting was an illegal alien who had a history of criminal convictions in this country. In fact, the suspect had been deported three different times by the U.S. Border Patrol and was detained once again this year on a cocaine charge. However, instead of remaining in jail under detention, he was allowed to post bail and was released. This tragic mistake cost Trooper Saunders his life. How could this criminal be set free? The details of his release are still coming to light; but unfortunately, it appears that the border patrol officer who had detained the suspect in the past was transferred to Arizona and unable to identify the suspect and place him in immigration detention. We must ensure that these ill-conceived transfers of agents that needlessly remove knowledgeable agents from a post for extended periods of time do not continue. It is time to stop robbing Peter to pay Paul in our border enforcement strategy. Just 1 week before the tragic death of Trooper Saunders, I joined my colleagues, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), in a letter to INS Commissioner Doris Meissner stating our disappointment that she had reinstated these inappropriate transfers from the northern border to the southern border. As a result of these transfers, our northern border is understaffed, leading to decreased enforcement. I am deeply saddened and outraged that our concerns were proved true by the killing of Trooper Saunders. Mr. Speaker, nothing in this legislation nor anything that this House considers can bring back Trooper Saunders or help his pregnant wife and 2-year-old daughter come to terms expressing his unnecessary death; but we can ensure that the border patrol is given adequate manpower and resources to keep illegal aliens locked up until deportation and ensure that, once deported, these illegal aliens do not reenter the United States. The underlying legislation goes a long way towards ensuring this goal. The fiscal year 2000 conference report contains funding for 1,000 new border patrol agents and increases detention for criminal and illegal aliens. I urge the committee to ensure that this year the INS goes forward with the mandate to strengthen our border patrol by hiring those officers as soon as possible. We must do everything possible to hopefully spare another community the senseless tragedy the family of Trooper Saunders and the local citizens must now endure. Once again I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for an excellent piece of legislation and urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Pursuant to House Resolution 296 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1487. In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1487) to provide for public participation in the declaration of national monuments under the Act popularly known as the Antiquities Act of 1906, with Mr. Miller of Florida in the chair.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon a ``dear colleague'' letter will be sent to all the Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of September 27 to grant a rule for the consideration of H.R. 2559, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act. The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which would require that amendments be pre-printed in the Congressional Record. In this case, amendments must be pre-printed prior to consideration of the bill on the floor. 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 House rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 296 would grant H.R. 1487, the National Monument NEPA Compliance Act, an open rule providing one hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. The rule makes in order the Committee on Resources' amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for purpose of amendment which shall be open for amendment at any point. The rule further 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 one motion to recommit with or without instructions. H.R. 1487, the National Monument NEPA Compliance Act, would provide for much needed public participation prior to the designation of national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Unfortunately, under current law such designations can be made by the administration acting without the benefit of public input into the decision-making process. For example, on September 18, 1996, President Clinton designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah without informing or consulting with the citizens of the State or their elected congressional representatives. This incident is especially troubling in light of documents obtained from the Clinton administration indicating that the monument in question was being planned for months. Incredibly, Mr. Speaker, State officials in Utah were not even notified, or I should say were notified only at 2 a.m. in the morning of the day that the proclamation was signed into law. Enactment of H.R. 1487 will ensure that this never happens again. Mr. Speaker, the bill requires the President to actively solicit public participation and comment before creating any national monument and to consult with the Governor and the congressional delegation of the affected State at least 60 days prior to the designation. After all, the establishment of a national monument is a significant step with far-reaching consequences for surrounding States and communities. Simple common sense dictates that local jurisdictions at least should be consulted before any land use change as dramatic as the designation of a national monument. The authors of H.R. 1487 have proposed a mechanism for doing exactly that. The bill received bipartisan support in the Committee on Resources, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that enactment of H.R. 1487 would have no significant impact on the Federal budget. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt both this open rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished 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, 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 296 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, House Resolution 290 would grant H.R. 1551, the Civil Aviation Research and Development Authorization Act of 1999, an open rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. The rule provides that the bill shall be open to amendment by section, and allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. 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 1 motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the Civil Aviation Research and Development Authorization Act of 1991 would authorize the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct research and development activities during fiscal years 2000 and 2001. The current authorization is scheduled to expire at the end of fiscal year 1999. Our Nation's air traffic system has seen a dramatic increase in use in recent years. This legislation, introduced by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), makes it possible to keep pace with rising aviation volumes and maintain an effective air traffic system. The FAA's research and development activities help produce the cutting edge technology necessary to ensure the safety, efficiency, and security of our national air transportation system. In addition, this bill makes it easier for Congress to track overall FAA research activities and to better assess priorities for modernization. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enactment of H.R. 1551 would cost approximately $1.32 billion in budget authority and $1.3 billion in outlays. Because the bill does not affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules was pleased to grant the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for an open rule on H.R. 1551, providing Members seeking to improve this bill the fullest opportunity to offer their amendments on the floor. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both House Resolution 290 and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 290 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, for the purpose of the 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. Speaker, H. Res. 289 would grant H.R. 1655, the Department of Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999, an open rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. The rule provides that the bill shall be open to amendment by section, and it allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord priority in and 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. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy, Research Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999 authorizes the civilian energy and scientific research and development programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. The bill was reported favorably by the Committee on Science by a vote of 31-to-1. Basic scientific research is the source of the new technologies and industries that will drive our Nation's economy in the next century. If America is to continue to enjoy a rising standard of living and a healthy economy, the United States must continue to be a leader in basic scientific research. The Federal Government has long had an important role to play in supporting these research programs, many of which are far too expensive for any single company or institution to support. H.R. 1655 recognizes the need for an aggressive research effort at the department of energy which has the third largest basic research program in the Federal Government, exceeded only by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, over the next 2 years, the bill would authorize $885 million for research on energy supply; $5.2 billion for energy physics and science; $825 million for fossil energy research and development; and $1 billion for energy conservation research. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Committee on Science has provided clear direction to the Department of Energy that this funding be awarded based on merit and should be used to fund research, not departmental administration. Finally, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 1655 would cost approximately $8 billion in budget authority and $8.25 billion in outlays over the next 2 years. The Committee on Rules was pleased to grant the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on Science, for an open rule on H.R. 1655, and accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both H. Res. 289 and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 289 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, as the House considers the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for FY- 2000, I would like to restate my intent on a provision I authored in last year's Defense Authorization Act, which is currently being implemented by the Department of Energy. The provision (section 3139 of PL 105-261) created the Office of River Protection (``ORP'') to be headed by a ``senior'' DOE official who would report directly to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. This individual would manage ``all aspects'' of the tank waste cleanup program at the Hanford site in my district. The provision also provided to the Manager of the Office of River Protection all resources ``necessary'' to manage the Handford tank privatization project in an ``efficient and streamlined'' manner. As sponsor of this provision of law, my intent is that the Manager of ORP should be accorded full decision making authority for planning, budgeting, acquisition, contract administration, and line safety responsibility for managing cleanup of the legacy high-level radioactive tank waste threatening the Columbia River. These specific authorities should include the power to establish a separate budget control point for all funding required for the operation and construction of the Handford tank farm program and the privatized vitrification project. The Manager of ORP should also be delegated the authority as head of contract activities for the purposes of carrying out the duties of the Office of River Protection. Failing to extend these basic budget and contracting authorities to the ORP manager is clearly at odds with the provision which bestowed responsibility for managing ``all aspects'' of the program on the ORP Manager and provided him all resources ``necessary'' to carry out the program. Further, the legislation expected him to report directly to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. Further, the provision in subsections (d) and (e) required reports to Congress with an integrated management plan and updates on progress. Semi-annual reports and regular briefings by the Manager of the Office of River Protection to the Congress are entirely consistent with the reporting requirements of last year's provision. The progress reports should address in the status of the ORP, cleanup progress, expenditures, and any other issues impeding implementation of the spirit and/or legal requirements of my provision from last year's defense authorization bill. I would like to report to the Speaker that I have expressed this intent to the Assistant Secretary and she has expressed her agreement with this interpretation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the chairman, and I look forward to working with the chairman on this issue.

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