Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 230 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, H.Res. 232 would grant H.R. 791, the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trails Study Act of 1999, an open rule providing 1 hour of general debate, divided equally 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. 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, H.Res. 232 provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 791 would amend the National Trails System Act to designate for study as a potential addition to the National Trails System the route of the British invasion of Maryland and the District of Columbia during the War of 1812. Such designation would give recognition to the patriots whose determination to stand firm against enemy invasion and bombardment preserved this Nation for future generations of Americans. H.R. 791, introduced by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), would authorize studies which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would cost the Federal Government approximately $250,000 over the next 2 years. The bill contains no unfunded mandates and thus would not affect pay-go procedures. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 791 was reported favorably by the Committee on Resources on a voice vote and there is no controversy surrounding this legislation. Accordingly, 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, 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, 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, before proceeding, I would like to take a minute to add my personal congratulations to those that have been extended from all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the tremendous honor that was recently bestowed on our colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). The Nobel Peace Prize, for which the gentleman from Ohio has been nominated, is among the most extraordinary measures of individual achievement that can be accorded to any man or woman from any country anywhere in the world. The gentleman's deep commitment to fight hunger throughout the world is well known to all of us here in the House, so I will not belabor that point. But clearly, this is a Member of Congress whose tireless efforts reach far beyond the walls of this building, indeed far beyond the borders of this country. Literally countless numbers of the world's neediest people have benefited from the often lonely and frequently tireless efforts of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). It is not my intention to embarrass my colleague, Mr. Speaker, but simply to take a moment and give credit where credit is due, which has also been done in a very deserving way, as evidenced by the nomination of this prestigious honor. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 210 would grant H.R. 659, the PATRIOT Act, an open rule providing 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered for amendment by title. Mr. Speaker, the rule 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 any postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. H.R. 659 is a relatively noncontroversial measure reported out of the Committee on Resources on April 28 by a voice vote. The bill would authorize a total of $4.25 million for the Federal Government to acquire land necessary to protect the Paoli and Brandywine Battlefields in Pennsylvania. The bill authorizes the Valley Forge Historical Society, in agreement with the Secretary of the Interior, to construct the Valley Forge Museum of the American Revolution at Valley Forge National Historic Park in Pennsylvania. Once construction of the museum is complete, the bill requires all titles and interests be transferred to the Federal Government with the understanding that the Valley Forge Historical Society will continue to operate the museum. The battles of Paoli and Brandywine took place in September of 1777 and were significant in the outcome of the American Revolution. The Battle of Brandywine was the largest land battle of the Revolution, and it was following these two battles that colonial troops, led by General George Washington, made their legendary camp at Valley Forge for the winter of 1777 and 1778. Finally, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that enactment of H.R. 659 will cost the Federal Government about $5 million over the next 5 years. Because the bill does not affect direct spending, pay-as- you-go procedures do not apply. As I have already mentioned, Mr. Speaker, this legislation was reported without dissent by the Committee on Resources. Accordingly, the Committee on Rules is pleased to recommend an open rule for consideration of the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution 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 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 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) in whose district at least one of these battlefields are located. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania 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 210 and ask for its immediate resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that House Resolution 180 be amended on page 2, line 2, by striking ``833'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``883''.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 180 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, 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 as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 180 would grant H.R. 883, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, a modified open rule, providing 1 hour of general debate to be divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. The rule provides for a 4-hour limit on the amendment process and provides that the bill shall be considered as read. Additionally, the rule makes in order only those amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Amendments that are preprinted may be offered only by the Member who caused them to be printed or his designee, shall be considered as read, and may be amended. The rule further 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 for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 883 was reported by the Committee on Resources. The bill would restore the constitutional role of Congress in managing lands belonging to the United States, preserve the sovereignty of the United States over its lands, and protect State sovereignty and private property rights in non-Federal lands adjacent to the Federal lands. Under Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution, Congress is vested with the authority to regulate Federal lands. Yet, over the past 25 years, an increasing expansion of our Nation's public lands have been included in various land use programs with little congressional oversight or approval. Two notable programs are the United Nations Biosphere Reserves and the World Heritage Sites, both of which are under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization or UNESCO. There are now 47 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and 20 World Heritage Sites in the United States. By becoming party to these international land use agreements through executive action, but without congressional authorization, the United States may be indirectly agreeing to terms to international treaties which the Senate has refused to ratify. By consenting to international land use designations, the United States in effect agrees to impose restrictions on surrounding lands which, in many cases, include a substantial amount of private property. Subjecting private property owners to land use restrictions imposed without their consent, or even the consent of their elected representatives, is a very serious matter. It is a practice which this Congress should emphatically reject. In response to growing concern about this situation, H.R. 883 would amend the National Historic Preservation Act to require congressional approval before any nominated property may be included in the World Heritage list. It would require the Secretary of the Interior to submit a report to Congress describing what impact inclusion on the World Heritage list would have on the natural resources associated with these nominated lands. The bill would prohibit the Secretary of Interior from nominating a property for inclusion on the World Heritage list until the Secretary makes findings that existing commercially viable uses of the nominated land or land within 10 miles of the nomination would not be adversely affected by its inclusion. H.R. 883 would prohibit Federal officials from nominating any land in the U.S. for designation as a Biosphere Reserve and would terminate all existing Biosphere Reserves unless, one, the Biosphere Reserve is specifically authorized in law by a date certain, two, the designated Biosphere Reserve consists entirely of land owned by the U.S., and, three, a management plan has been implemented which specifically provides for the protection of non-Federal property rights and uses. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill would prohibit Federal officials from designating any land in the United States for a special or restricted use under any international agreement unless such designation is specifically approved by law, and would also prohibit including any State, local, or privately owned land in any such designation, unless that designation is approved by those affected parties. The Committee on Rules has reported a modified rule, as requested by the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) of the Committee on Resources, in order to provide Members of the House seeking to amend this legislation with the full and fair opportunity to do so. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 883. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for taking this action because let us put this into perspective. This was a mine in north central Washington that had invested some $80 million with the full expectation that, if they followed the rules as was laid out in current law, that they would be able to mine for this gold. They passed every hoop that the State of Washington put, every barrier the State of Washington put up, everything that the Federal Government put up, and they passed it until it got here and the Solicitor simply said, ``I'm sorry.'' What happened was that the Solicitor said, ``I'm sorry, we're going to take a provision that had never been enforced, never been enforced in the 1872 Mining Law,'' and said for that reason we are going to completely shut down this mine, again, after it had gone through all the barriers that were required under current law. Now I might add it does have an effect, as the gentleman mentioned, on retirement funds, but also it has an impact on employment of about 150 to 200 people in a county frankly that is crying for more employment. So in fairness is the real reason why this provision was put into law, because it deals with this specific mine and mines that are in existence already, that were playing by the rules that we thought they should be playing by when they started their endeavor and made that investment. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for the work he did on that because I think he did the right thing.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I just want to point out something that I find so ironic with the debate from the previous speaker and the debate on the rule. Here we are debating the bill that deals with our national defense, deals with our agriculture industry, and deals with aid to Central America, which I think is needed, otherwise this body would not take it up. And yet we hear the rhetoric from the other side and specific Members that we are decimating our environmental laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let us put this into perspective, exactly what happened. Under existing law, a gold mine in Washington State opened up 11 years ago, invested $80 million under existing rules, jumped over every hoop, every barrier, went through every environmental hoop from the State, from the Federal Government, and they said proceed, until it got to Washington, D.C. and a solicitor took existing statute that had never been interpreted this way before, never been interpreted this way before, and said we are going to shut down this gold mine after an $80 million investment. This happened about 6 weeks ago. It had to be fixed in a timely manner because people have invested in this enterprise, pension funds; there is about 150 to 200 jobs at stake in north central Washington. So this fix had to be done in an emergency manner, and that is why this vehicle was fixed. It does not, I have to repeat, this does not decimate any environmental laws. It takes care of this one specific project and those projects that are in place right now. I urge support of this supplemental budget.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to 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. Madam Speaker, H.R. 154 is a structured rule providing 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided and controlled 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 as an original bill for the purposes of amendment, modified by the amendments printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute and makes in order only those amendments printed in part 2 of the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. Furthermore, the rule provides that amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by an opponent and proponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule allows for 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 for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, H.R. 1480, is the culmination of work that was begun in the 105th Congress on a variety of Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water projects. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and all committee members for their hard work on this important legislation. The maintenance and improvement of water resource infrastructure is vital to the residents in my own district and to the people and economy of the entire Nation as a whole. Specifically, H.R. 1480 authorizes 95 new water resource projects, makes necessary modifications to six existing projects, and authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct 26 studies on a variety of water resource issues. The bill authorizes $1.9 billion for these development projects, which are funded on a cost-share basis with non- Federal partners. These projects are being authorized only after detailed feasibility studies conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and by a careful review of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 1480 also addresses the concerns of those who believe that past water resource projects have had unintended impacts on the environment. In particular, the bill establishes a pilot program to explore the feasibility of natural flood control methods, and it makes it easier for nonprofit organizations to participate in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers environmental programs. Madam Speaker, passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 will allow needed maintenance and improvements to our Nation's navigation, irrigation, flood control and power generation infrastructure to move forward. I therefore encourage my colleagues to support H. Res. 154, which I believe is a fair rule, and to support the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, 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. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 154 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this issue.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 153) amending House Resolution 5, One Hundred Sixth Congress, as amended by House Resolution 129, One Hundred Sixth Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration.