Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this point. No less than 4 weeks ago, in the northern part of my district, there was a Habitat Conservation Plan that was agreed to by all the parties. It includes essentially all of the Columbia River north of Wenatchee and including all the tributaries on up to the Canadian border. That is a locally developed plan. I am just suggesting to you that that ought to be a model that we ought to pursue, not only on the river, I hope is done downstream, but also as a model that we can pursue. Because the one thing that we have, I think that you will agree with me, I hope you do, and that is this: One size does not fit all in as diverse an area as we have in the West. There has to be a new way to look at it. The HCP that was agreed to by the PUDs in the northern part of our district, frankly, can be a model, not only on the river, but also in the forested areas. I would hope that defeating the gentleman's amendment would lead to that because this is where the county commissioners are. This is exactly where the county commissioners are in their rejection of the one-size-fits-all. That is why I think that with that HCP as a guide, which I say was signed no more than 4 or 5 weeks ago, this could be an opportunity for us. So I think that it is appropriate that, in fact, we defeat the gentleman's amendment, and this is the reason why.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I really do not quite know how to start after hearing the gentleman from California, the debate on this and hearing the gentleman from western Washington with his remarks, but let me put it in perspective from my point of view. What we have heard so far on those that are proponents of this amendment are ironically people that do not live in the area that is affected. I suppose that is not unusual when we talk about resource issues. But I think in this particular case it would be worthwhile to find out from those of us that represent the people that live in this area and the potential impact that it has on them. Let me back up to when I got involved in this issue. This came about in 1993 or 1994. Obviously when I was elected to this body in 1994, it was brought to my attention by local people, local county commissioners, and they were asking questions, ``What is this ecosystem management project and what is the end result?'' At that point I could not really answer them. But I did do this. I advised them very strongly that they should be at the table, they should be at the table no matter what comes out of this, because if you are not at the table, then you can hardly criticize what decisions may be coming down the line. So those that I talked to took my advice and others' advice that that would be the procedure that they would follow. So they have been sitting at the table, starting in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 through this year. We have moved the comment period back from time to time. I think that was good policy. The reason why is because the feedback I got from the elected officials that represent those counties in my district, they were hearing things that they did not quite like to hear. They wanted more information. So as they got more information, they could see that this is becoming very, very quickly a top-down plan. Because, as was pointed out by my colleague, the gentleman from Washington, this was never authorized by this body. It was only funded in an appropriations bill, and it kind of grew like topsy and grew and grew. We are going to have this expenditure grow out for what? So at the end of the day, what has happened is that those county commissioners in my district and in the adjoining counties said, ``What can we do in order to change the way this thing is headed?'' We suggested that maybe one thing we ought to do is cut off the funding and use the data that has been collected and use it on a local level. Because, after all, if you come from the school that the government closest to people is best able to react to the wishes of those people, then that is a pretty good model with this data. So over 65 percent of the county commissioners in these affected counties have written, saying something like this: ``We would like to see this program terminated. We will use the data as we think best in our own particular areas.'' I think and I trust those county commissioners to use that data in a way that is the right way to go about it. Again, I want to make this point, so many times when we talk about resource issues, these resource issues are trying to be decided by somebody outside of the affected area. The fact is that most of the discussion here, at least from my friend, the gentleman from California, talked about the forest areas. But this area is 144 million acres, and a good portion of it has no forest land. In fact I can tell you my district, which is all impacted, has very little forest land. What we come to and why my local elected officials are apprehensive about this whole process is simply this: It is the unintended consequences that come out of this data. In my district, and I dare say throughout all of the affected area, the rainfall by and large is less than 10 inches. So if you have an unintended consequences of controlling the water resources, what does that do to the agriculture industry? What does that do, for goodness sakes, to the fish? These are things that are not being addressed, in my view, by this. We are just studying, studying, studying. I think if we are going to come to grips with what has been compiled so far in a program that was only supposed to have been funded for 1 year, it seems to me we ought to put that data in place. The county commissioners in my district are prepared to take that data and put it in a place where they think appropriate. But I think it is very important to give them the opportunity to make that decision on their level as they see appropriate. So I would urge my colleagues to vote against the McDermott amendment. I think it is bad policy. I think we ought to terminate this program as the Committee on Appropriations has suggested. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the McDermott amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings on the question on agreeing to the motion to instruct on H.R. 3616 be postponed until tomorrow.

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.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to make four points after hearing the debate here on the rule. First of all, most of the debate here has been regarding NEA, which is only a small part of this bill. This is an open rule in all other areas. Members that have disagreements with what the committee has come up with will have an opportunity on the floor following this to perfect the bill as they see fit. The second point is that we have protected the protocol of not authorizing on an appropriation bill without leave of the authorizers. We have tried to maintain that. We think that is good policy in the Committee on Rules under Chairman Solomon, and we have protected that. That is why the NEA is not protected. Third, in the short time that I have been in this Congress, there has been a great deal of debate, I will not say dissension, but maybe that is a proper word, regarding NEA. If I heard it once, I heard it a number of times, why do we not just have an up or down vote on this issue and be done with it. At the end of the day, that is precisely what we are going to have is an up or down vote on NEA. Finally, I would like to make this observation. It was said in debate that the gentleman from Illinois who is retiring at the end of this year has worked very hard on this question. I do not think his work on this question will be forgotten because of the way this rule is structured at all. In fact, I think he will probably be remembered. I might say that I happen to be one that disagrees with his position as far as Federal funding, but the gentleman's work will certainly be remembered; and I think that is important. Certainly when he leaves here, he can have some solace in that. So I think this is a good rule. It provides an open rule. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question, yes on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I include the following explanation of ordering the previous question: The Previous Question Vote: What It Means House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part that: ``There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if a quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or ordered.'' In the case of a special rule or order of business resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the previous question is moved following the one hour of debate allowed for under House Rules. The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and amendment on the legislation it would make in order. Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished subcommittee chairman that is responsible for this legislation. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER 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 Florida (Mr. Goss), a member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS 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 Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time is there on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for 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 purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 504 is an open rule which waives all points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 306 or section 401 of the Budget Act of 1974. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule further provides that the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted. The rule also waives clause 2, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and legislative provisions, and clause 6, prohibiting reappropriations in an appropriations bill, of rule XXI against the bill, except as follows: Page 88, line 10, through page 89, line 6. The rule makes in order those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report, which shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided between a proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. The rule also waives all points of order against amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report. Mr. Speaker, the rule permits the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. It allows the Chair to postpone recorded votes and reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed votes, provided that voting on the first of any series of questions shall be not less than 15 minutes. The rule waives points of order against amendments for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting non-emergency amendments to be offered to a bill containing an emergency designation under the Budget Act. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4193, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1999 was reported by the Committee on Appropriations by voice vote. The bill appropriates a total of $13.4 billion for fiscal year 1999, which is roughly $800 million less than the President's request and roughly $700 million less than what was appropriated last year. The bill's spending level is equal to the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for discretionary budget authority. Approximately one-half of the bill's funding finances Interior Department programs to manage and study the Nation's animal, plant and mineral resources. The balance of the measure's funds support other non-interior agencies that perform related functions. These include the Forest Service, conservation and fossil energy programs run by the Department of Energy, and the Indian Health Services, as well as the Smithsonian and other cultural organizations. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), for requesting an open rule on this important legislation. Recognizing that certain members have particular concerns about the bill, the Committee on Rules has reported a rule which permits those wishing to offer amendments to do so. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4193. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 504 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res 301.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the Members who have worked on this measure, particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and my colleague, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Nethercutt). Without their leadership on this issue, we would not be here today considering this important measure. Right now, the wheat producers of Washington State are facing wheat prices that are below the cost of production. This means that they can either choose to sell for a loss or store their wheat in hopes that prices will return to a higher level. Many of these growers have been waiting around for months for the price to climb. It has not. Now is the time to act. Unfortunately, with the test of the nuclear weapons by both India and Pakistan, the Arms Control Act Mandates certain economic sanctions. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, I wholeheartedly condemn the escalation of the arms race between India and Pakistan. I do not believe the way to send a message is to unilaterally cut off trade of our producers. That is precisely what will happen if we do not pass this bill before us today. It is important to note that Pakistan is a number one foreign purchaser of wheat from the northwest, over 35 percent. Without the guarantees that are offered by the credits, the Department of Agriculture, Pakistan will purchase billions of dollars of wheat from other countries such as Australia and Canada. They are not bound by these outdated laws on our books. So I would like to emphasize the timeliness of this legislation. If we do not pass this legislation today or the Senate does not follow suit immediately, our producers will be unable to participate in the upcoming rounds of purchases by Pakistan, and we will have missed another key opportunity to help our foreign farmers. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate what has been said here today. This legislation is very, very important to our agriculture industry but particularly to the wheat industry in my State.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Good. I thank the gentleman. If the gentleman would continue into a colloquy, I have one more inquiry. During a June 10 hearing in the Committee on Resources, witnesses from the National Park Service testified that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not properly complying with the implementing regulations of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, or NAGPRA. These witnesses indicated that errors on the part of the Corps have resulted in a lawsuit against the Federal Government for mishandling cultural resources found on land owned by the Corps. Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to offer an amendment to set aside $10,000 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers overhead account to pay for a study on the Corps' compliance with NAGPRA. However, after discussions with the committee staff, I believe that the Corps could be persuaded to review this issue without amending the bill before us today. Would the gentleman from Pennsylvania be willing to join me in a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requesting a review of its compliance with this law? Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am happy to yield to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), the chairman. First, I would like to say how much I appreciated working with the gentleman and the ranking member during these past 2 years. Both of them have worked closely with us to make sure that critical nuclear cleanup efforts are fully funded and effectively managed. I wish the both of them the very best. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise an issue for the Committee's consideration as this bill moves into conference. As the gentleman knows, research into the field of medical isotopes has moved forward at a record pace over the past several years. In one recent clinical trial, medical isotope therapy demonstrated a 75 to 80 percent success rate against non-Hodgkins lymphoma patients diagnosed as terminal. New research into alpha-emitting isotopes appears to be even more promising. Yet, today more than 90 percent of our research and treatment isotopes are imported. A recent strike at a Canadian reactor threatened to undermine diagnostic medical treatments nationwide. A state-of-the-art facility in my district, the Fast Flux Test Facility, is now under consideration for production of these valuable cancer fighting tools. In addition, the facility could serve as an interim or backup source of tritium, at a savings of billions of dollars over other alternatives. As the chairman knows, the House fully funded the President's request but transferred that request into the Department's environmental management account. The Senate, on the other hand, cut $4 million from the program, but placed it into the energy research account as requested. Although the $31 million provided for the program is inadequate to fund either start-up or shutdown, I understand that the administration is working to correct this situation. I wonder if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) might be willing to work with us on these two issues.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Good. I appreciate the gentleman's assistance with us on this matter. Once again, I add my congratulations to the gentleman for a successful tenure here and success in getting this bill through the House tonight.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the previous question procedure is simply one to end debate, and, if the previous question is defeated, then those that oppose it, which in this case would be my friend from Texas who had an opportunity to change, and actually we would lose control, to put it in perspective, of the floor and turn it over to a bill that frankly, ironically, none of the three provisions in that bill have been debated in the Committee on Ways and Means or on the floor. I find that rather ironic. But what it would do, it would turn over to the minority the floor, and I think that would be not advantageous for us. So, Mr. Speaker, then what I would like to do and to urge my colleagues is to vote for the previous question so that we can get on with this debate, and I would also say that I believe the debate that is going to ensue after this rule is passed will indeed be historic. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.