Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purposes of entering into a colloquy with the subcommittee chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I appreciate all the hard work that the gentleman and his committee have done on this measure. As the chairman knows, the recent listings of the nine salmon and steelhead runs in the Pacific Northwest as endangered has resulted in substantial delays in the processing of jeopardy reviews under the Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service. This backlog has already caused important local transportation projects to be delayed, and has even put Federal highway funding for some of these projects at risk of expiring. In some cases, such as the replacement of traffic lights in Richland, Washington, these projects have no discernible impact on endangered species. I know the gentleman shares my support for the measures, which will reduce this backlog within existing resources. The NMFS has previously entered into cooperative agreements with State agencies to use State employees to process these reviews more quickly. Will the chairman work with me to encourage NMFS to continue these efforts to reduce delays without increasing the number of NMFS employees?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I do so following my friend from Massachusetts, who is always a joy to hear on the floor, although sometimes what he says is not entirely all the facts. So let me point out what the facts are in this particular case and why we are addressing this issue today. First of all, this gold mine that started all this process is indeed in my district. The plan of operation started in 1992. They went through the draft environmental process and the record decision was let after 5 years, in January of 1997. Nearly 2 years later, after going through a number of appeals, the Federal Court upheld the EIS that was arrived at going through that process. I might add going through this process the Crown Jewel Mine project secured over 50 permits to comply with State and national environmental laws. In fact, the director of the Washington State Department of Ecology said, and I quote, ``The most rigorous environmental analysis the State has ever conducted on a project of this type,'' referring to the Crown Jewel Mine. ``No other proposal has received this level of environmental scrutiny.'' Now, the reason that I bring this up is because what caused the amendment to be brought forth on the supplemental budget that we passed earlier this year is that in December of 1998 the Federal District Court upheld the EIS and the record decision. In other words, Battle Mountain Gold project could proceed forward. They were advised in January of 1999 by the BLM, the United States Forest Service, that the final formal approvals of the project were imminent and ready to go. Specifically, on February 4, the U.S. Forest Service advised Battle Mountain Gold to come in the next day, on February 5, for approval of the plan of operations. On February 5, a day later, they went in to talk to the Forest Service; and the Forest Service advised them that this decision was kicked up to Washington, D.C. And we heard a number of Members mention about the solicitor. That caused, then, the rider to be put on the supplemental bill to protect this project. Because they played by the rules, as was laid out when they went through this whole process. That is exactly what they did, is played by the rules. They have invested $80 million in this project. From the standpoint of employment in an area where unemployment is high in my district, this would provide somewhere between 150 and 250 jobs over the life of the project. So the response here is not something that deals, I think, as the debate has been going on, because in the short time I have been here, when I served on the Committee on Resources, there has been a lot of talk about reforming the 1872 Mining Law, and I think everybody wants to sit down and probably arrive at a reasonable accommodation. But the specific reason, I want to point out again, was because this company acted in good faith under existing rules and applications to go through with this project, and all of a sudden it was pulled out. Now, we do not always react positively in terms of how the Senate reacts. We have to do what we think is the right thing to do. I believe the Rahall amendment really is a step back from where we were when we passed that rider on the supplemental bill. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned, that rider was specifically for the Battle Mountain Gold Company. But if the Rahall amendment were to pass and there were further permits that were required of the Battle Mountain Gold it could, therefore, end that project again. And again, to reiterate, that project proceeded under existing rules. So I oppose the Rahall amendment, and I would certainly encourage Members of the respective authorization committee to work on the 1872 Mining Law, because it has certainly been talked about enough. And perhaps this debate may be the emphasis to continue forward. I do not know. But I believe the Rahall amendment is ill-advised here, and I urge Members to vote against it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, one final point. The millsite law, and this has been conceded, it does limit acreage to 5 acres per millsite. But there is no limit on the number of millsites in a claim. That is the distinction.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is the gray area that we are talking about here and that is why probably this issue should probably be taken up in the proper committee. Again, I want to reiterate, the reason what prompted all of this was because of one company in my district that had multiple sites and were playing by the rules, as had always been applied, had always been applied, not with an exception, had always been applied; and then the Solicitor General came up with that one opinion, which, of course, changed the whole thing.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am just going back to what has prompted all of this, and that was the Battle of Mountain Gold. The fact is they had multiple millsites within their claim. That is the distinction and the interpretation.

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that that is an opinion and not specifically in law, but the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who is on the committee and whose State has a great deal of mining law, may have a more elaborate response for the gentleman.

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 yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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) chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 243 would grant H.R. 2466, a bill making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2000, an open rule waiving points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with sections 306 or 401 of the Congressional Budget Act. 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, against provisions in the bill except as otherwise specified in the rule. Mr. Speaker, the rule also makes in order the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report which may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report. The rule further waives clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting nonemergency 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 amendments in the Congressional Record. It also allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce votes 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, H.R. 2466 would provide regular annual appropriations for the Department of the Interior and for other related agencies, including the Forest Service, the Department of Energy, the Indian Health Service, the Smithsonian Institution and the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities. The Subcommittee on Interior was originally allocated $11.3 billion, a 19 percent decrease in funding from last year. Last week, the subcommittee received a $2.7 billion increase in funding over this mark made possible by selling the electromagnetic spectrum sooner than was expected. The bill provides $14.1 billion in budgetary authority for fiscal year 2000, $200 million below last year's level and $1.1 billion below the President's request. Mr. Speaker, every year millions of Americans enjoy the world renowned parks, forests, wildlife refuges and other facilities funded in this bill. In addition, H.R. 2466 would do much to enhance, develop and protect our Nation's abundant natural resources in an environmentally responsible way and do so while staying within the overall discretionary spending caps. The Committee on Rules was pleased to grant the request of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for an open rule which will make it possible for Members seeking to improve this bill the fullest opportunity to offer their amendments during House consideration of H.R. 2466. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support both H. Res. 243 and the underlying bill. 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 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 243 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 231 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, H. Res. 231 would grant H.R. 592, the World War II Veterans Park at Miller Field Gateway National Recreation Area, an open rule providing 1 hour of general debate 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 the purpose of amendment, which shall be open to amendment at any point. In addition, the rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI prohibiting nongermane amendments against the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The rule 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, House Resolution 231 provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 592 was introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), and would redesignate the Great Kills Park in the Gateway National Recreation Area as the World War II Veterans Park at Great Kills. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 592 would have no significant impact on the Federal budget. The bill contains no unfunded mandates, and thus would not affect pay-go procedures. H.R. 592 was reported favorably by the Committee on Resources on a voice vote, and there is no controversy surrounding the bill. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill, and 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 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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 232 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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. Speaker, H. Res. 230 would grant H.R. 66, the Route 66 Corridor Act, an open rule providing 1 hour of general debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking 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 the purpose of amendment, which shall be open to amendment by section. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed 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, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 230 provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. H.R. 66, the Route 66 Corridor Act, would permit the Secretary of the Interior to support and collaborate with the State and local and private institutions to preserve one of the most famous highways in the United States. The bill, introduced by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), would further the preservation and restoration of portions of the highway, businesses and sites of interest during this period of outstanding historic significance. In its heyday, Mr. Speaker, Route 66 extended from Chicago to Los Angeles, helping businesses to move their products and millions of Americans to move their families westward, primarily between 1933 and 1970. It also opened up the southwestern landscape to tourism, has been mentioned in books, television, movies and songs. H.R. 66 was reported by the Committee on Resources on a voice vote and there is no controversy surrounding this legislation. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.