Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 382 is an open rule consideration of H.R. 992, the Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the Committee on the Judiciary amendment in the nature of a substitute, which shall be considered as read. The rule further provides that Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration will be given priority in recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with the House rules. The rule also allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce the 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 purpose of H.R. 992 is to end the so-called Tucker Act Shuffle that can bounce private property owners between the U.S. district courts and the court of Federal claims when seeking redress against the government for the taking of their property. The fifth amendment to the Constitution provides in part, and I quote, ``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' Based on the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Federal Government can only be sued with its consent. In 1887, Congress passed the Tucker Act permitting money claims based on the U.S. Constitution to be brought in the court of claims. However, if a property owner would prefer not to receive compensation for the Federal Government's confiscation of property, but to challenge the government's right to confiscate the property, the owner should go to the U.S. district court. If a property owner wishes to both challenge the appropriateness of a taking of property and pursue monetary damages arising from the taking, the owner must choose to pursue one claim before the other. Both claims, in other words, may not be pursued at the same time. To make matters worse, the owner cannot go to the court of Federal claims until a final decision, including appeals, has been reached in the district court. The court of Federal claims statute of limitations prevents the owner from bringing suit for more than 6 years after a claim first accrues. Thus, incredibly and through no fault of his own, under current law the property owner may be left with no legal remedy. This problem and property rights in general are of special concern throughout the West, and in central Washington which I represent. Far too often landowners facing the prospect of long and costly litigation against the Federal Government feel they have no choice but to accept a settlement that they believe is unfair. This is wrong and it must stop; that is the goal of H.R. 992. Mr. Speaker, the Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act seeks to correct this injustice by granting the U.S. district courts and the court of Federal claims the power to determine all claims arising out of Federal agency actions alleged to constitute takings in violation of the fifth amendment. The property owner then would choose which court would hear his case. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has reported an open rule in order to permit Members seeking to amend H.R. 992 the fullest possible opportunity to offer any germane amendment during floor consideration of the bill. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to pass not only the rule, but H.R. 992 as well. 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 Texas (Mr. Frost), 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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to express my concern over certain provisions in this bill. While we certainly support all of the efforts to expand trade between our Nation and the rest of the world, we also must take action to ensure that the trade is not a one-way trade. This bill outlines several criteria that the President must consider before granting preferential trade status to any Sub-Saharan African nation. Specifically, the President must consider a country's progress in reducing tariffs on American products, eliminating other nontariff barriers to American imports, and abiding by internationally accepted trading practices. Mr. Chairman, this bill is very clear that free and open trade ought to be the goal of the administration in this country. Prohibitive actions against U.S. products run counter to the intent of this bill and, by definition, would preclude those countries from being granted preferential treatment under this bill. A number of my constituents have already attempted to pry open the doors of African nations. In particular, our domestic apple, pear and peach producers and processors have on a number of occasions attempted to export their products to South Africa. On each occasion they have been rejected. Potential recipients should therefore be put on notice: Any effort to continue to block access to U.S. products violates the provisions of this bill and would preclude receiving the benefits of this proposal. I and my colleagues from the Northwest will certainly be monitoring the administration's implementation of this bill. We expect the administration to abide by the eligibility factors contained in this bill, and we will continue to work closely with the U.S. Trade Representative to ensure that all trade with Sub-Saharan Africa is both free and fair for U.S. producers, processors and consumers.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3073.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, subcommittee chairman on the Committee on Commerce dealing with this legislation. (Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado 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 Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 283 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, as well as 20 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Resources. The rule makes in order a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as the base text, and waives Congressional Budget Act requirements that the Committee on the Budget report provisions within its jurisdiction. The rule also waives House rules prohibiting appropriations in an authorization measure. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order 10 amendments, debatable in the order listed and for the amount of time specified in the Committee on Rules report. The rule further specifies that time for debate on each amendment shall be equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, and that amendments shall not be subject to further amendment, and shall not be subject for a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Furthermore, the rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald]. Under the rule, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone votes and reduce the voting time on a postponed vote to 5 minutes, provided it follows a regular 15-minute vote. In addition, the rule provides that after a motion that the Committee rise has been rejected on a day, the Chairman may entertain another such motion on that day only if offered by the majority leader or his designee. The rule also provides that after a motion to strike the enacting words of the bill has been rejected, the Chairman may not entertain another such motion during further consideration of the bill. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. After passage of H.R. 1270, the rule provides for the consideration of a motion to call up S. 104, the Senate version of the bill, strike all after the enacting clause, and insert the text of the House-passed version of H.R. 1270. After adoption of the motion, the rule makes in order a motion for the House to insist on its amendments to S. 104 and request a conference. Mr. Speaker, as a Member who represents the area that has the largest repository of nuclear waste in the United States, let me take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that Congress not only has a statutory responsibility but a moral obligation to face squarely the issue of long-term storage of nuclear waste. For more than half a century now our Nation has faced the challenges and reaped the benefits of nuclear science. Our ever-growing understanding of the atom has helped to win both World War II and the cold war that followed. At the same time, nuclear science has always made possible the generation of safe, clean electric power for millions of Americans in ways that produce far less pollution than many other sources of energy. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, there is a very large and costly asterisk attached to the many benefits of nuclear energy. That is the need to deal with the large quantities of nuclear waste that are a byproduct of power generation in more than 100 reactors across this country. True, we could dramatically reduce the waste stream if we treated the spent fuel produced in our Nation's powerplants as a renewable resource. Unfortunately, however, the tremendous potential for reprocessing has never been realized in the United States because of political opposition based more, frankly, on political ideology than on sound science. As a result, Mr. Speaker, nuclear waste today sits untreated in temporary storage sites across the country that are rapidly reaching their full capacity. The amount of such waste is large and it is still growing. The nuclear wastes resulting from defense production are even less stable. For example, in my own district at Hanford, 54 million gallons of liquid nuclear and hazardous wastes are sitting in 177 underground storage tanks just a few miles from the Columbia River. In addition, 2,100 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel rests little more than 100 yards from this same river. This pattern is repeated again and again at Savannah River, SC; Rocky Flats, CO; at Oak Ridge in Tennessee; at Idaho Engineering Laboratory in Idaho; and elsewhere. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this Congress has an obligation to act. Just as clearly, there are those in this body who oppose this legislation. Let me emphasize, I do not want to question their motives in opposing this bill. No one on either side of this issue who has looked carefully at the issues could fail to see the seriousness of the problems we face. While I do not want to question their motives, I do have some practical questions for the critics of H.R. 1270. First, what do they propose as an alternative? We have done too little for too long, and the time, frankly, is running out. Would our opponents send us back to the drawing board and delay this process yet once again? Would they leave this dangerous material stored in hundreds of our communities indefinitely? Do they truly favor leaving this material in deteriorating containers and storage pools? These are questions I think, Mr. Speaker, that need to be addressed in the debate that will follow after the adoption of the rule. Mr. Speaker, there are times when this body must make agonizingly difficult decisions, and there are times when the risks of inaction are simply too great. I believe this is one of those times. This is a sound piece of legislation. The committees of jurisdiction have worked long and hard to balance the concerns of Members from different parts of this country. H.R. 1270 may not be perfect, but the rule we have reported will provide Members an opportunity to address their most serious objections to this bill. The committee has reported a rule which will permit full and extensive debate on all sides of this complex and controversial issue. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to pass this rule so that we can proceed with the long overdue debate on H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. 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 the 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, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the other distinguished gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 283 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 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 yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr].

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 232 provides for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2160, a bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 1998, and for other purposes. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration, and upon its adoption the House shall be considered to have adopted the text of the following concurrent resolution: ``Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, that in the enrollment of H.R. 2160 the Clerk of the House shall, in title IV, in the item relating to `Domestic Food Programs--Food Stamp Program', strike the period and insert the following: `; provided further, That none of the funds made available under this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations,'.''. This amendment, I understand, has been agreed to. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], and the ranking minority member, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], are to be commended for their leadership on the House-Senate conference committee. They have brought to the House floor a conference report which largely reflects the priorities agreed upon earlier this year when the House passed H.R. 2160 by a vote of 395 to 14. Mr. Speaker, this conference report appropriates $49.6 billion in new fiscal year 1998 budget authority for agriculture programs, which is $103 million more than the House-passed bill but $3.6 billion less than was appropriated in fiscal year 1997. When scorekeeping adjustments are taken into account, the bill provides $35.8 billion for mandatory programs, which is about 80 percent of the total appropriated, and $13.8 billion for discretionary programs. This conference report cuts food stamps by $2.5 billion from last year. It increases funding for the supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children by $118 million over fiscal year 1997. It cuts funding for the Commodity Credit Corporation, maintains level funding for the Federal Crop Insurance and increases funding for both the Agriculture Research Service and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service. Finally, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, this rule also self-executes one minor technical correction which was inadvertently omitted from the conference report itself. Once again, I commend the House conferees on their work on this important agreement and urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the accompanying conference report. 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 rise today in strong support of congressional efforts to reign in and reform the Internal Revenue Service [IRS]. Many Americans believe that the IRS is an agency that is out of control. Far too often we hear reports that this agency terrorizes and threatens taxpayers. While many of the IRS's problems are admittedly linked to our far-too-complicated Tax Code, the agency's shameful mistreatment of taxpayers has other roots, as well. Instead of working on their behalf, the IRS treats too many taxpayers as criminals who are presumed guilty unless they can prove their own innocence. Unfortunately, because most Americans lack sufficient resources to fight the IRS in court, the agency's actions are often financially devastating to families and businesses. That is why I have cosponsored the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997, introduced by Congressman Rob Portman, Republican, of Ohio. Our bill would implement the recommendations of the year-long National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, in order to provide taxpayers new protections and rights to assist in dealing with this overzealous agency. By improving customer service, expanding taxpayer rights, and overhauling the IRS's management structure, this legislation would provide badly needed long-term solutions to the problems that too many Americans experience with the IRS. Most importantly, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997 would completely overhaul the Tax Code. Since the last major simplification of the Tax Code was passed in 1986, 4,000 amendments have been added to the Tax Code. A fairer, simpler, single-rate Tax Code offers the best hope for ending the IRS as we know it. But until tax simplification is in place, we need to take steps to correct these very real abuses and protect our constituents and taxpayers. That is why I strongly urge this Congress to take swift action to enact the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997.