Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 196) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment on which the previous question has just been ordered be modified in the form that I have placed at the desk and be considered adopted.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on both sides?

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say, a lot of us regret being here for different reasons. I would agree with the gentleman that the Committee on Appropriations has worked very closely in trying to work these things out on a bipartisan basis, but unfortunately, the reason we are here is because of tactics that were by others, starting last Friday, because on a bipartisan basis this bill was supposed to have been done last Friday. Unfortunately, it did not because there were numerous motions to rise, which slowed down the process. We had the same process yesterday. Because the House wants to complete its business before the August recess, and I know Members on the gentleman's side of the aisle share that, as do we, we felt, regrettably, regrettably, that we had to have a rule, which is one of the responsibilities of the Committee on Rules, in order to expedite the process. But we made every amendment that was offered, that was printed, in order, plus three others. So I regret, as does the gentleman, that this happens. We just come at it from different ways. We want to expedite the process. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules had no intention of reporting a rule on H.R. 2160, a bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. Indeed, the Committee on Appropriations requested no rule and brought this bill to the floor as a privileged resolution, open to amendment at any point. Regrettably the decision by certain Members of this body to engage in an extended series of delaying tactics by offering dilatory motions has required us to offer this rule governing debate on this bill in order that the House may move forward with its legislative business in a timely and responsible fashion. Accordingly, the Committee on Rules reported last night a modified closed rule. The rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting unauthorized and legislative provisions in an appropriations bill and clause 6 of rule XXI prohibiting reappropriations in an appropriations bill against provisions of a bill except as otherwise specified in the rule. The rule provides that no further amendments shall be in order except those amendments printed before July 22, 1997 in the Congressional Record; the amendments printed in the Congressional Record numbered 21, 22 and 23; and the amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] pending when the Committee of the Whole rose on July 22, 1997. The rule provides that each amendment made in order shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes except as otherwise specified in section 2 of the rule, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. 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. The rule also provides that after a motion that the committee rise has been rejected on a day, another such motion on that day may be entertained only if offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, or the majority leader, or their designee. The rule provides that after a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill has been rejected, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may not entertain another motion during further consideration of the bill. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate what I said in my opening remarks, that the Committee on Rules regrets that the rule now pending before the House is, in fact, before us. But it was necessary, and I urge its passage so that the House may move forward with the important business it must complete prior to the August recess, week after next. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. There are three amendments that have been made in order. Taking back my time, if the gentlewoman will let me finish my remarks, and then if she has any questions, I will be more than happy to respond. During consideration of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, 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. I think that is pointed out in the rule because in the rule all amendments that were preprinted are in order.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will let me finish my remarks, then she can ask me, and if there is any question specifically, I will be more than happy to respond.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would just advise the gentlewoman when I finish my remarks, perhaps the questions that she has will be answered. If not, then maybe we can engage in a colloquy at that time. If she allows me to finish my remarks, I will point out what is in the rule, then we can proceed from there.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 193 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution offered by Mr. Metcalf. This resolution simply expresses the view that the merger of two American companies should be the concern of regulatory agencies of the U.S. Government, not the European Union. Despite the approval of the Federal Trade Commission, bureaucrats in Brussels have threatened to impose fines on Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas, or even seize their planes in Europe, in order to protect a government-subsidized European manufacturer. Mr. Speaker, the American people have recognized the actions of the European Union as unjustified and based on obvious self interest. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this resolution, and protect these American companies and their employees from Europe's efforts to prevent fair competition.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Congressman Coburn and Congressman Stearns to prohibit any Federal funds from being used to support the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program or the World Heritage Program. This same amendment has also been included in the National Science Foundation authorization, the foreign affairs authorization and the defense authorization. It is hard to believe, but over 68 percent of the lands within our national parks, preserves, and monuments have now been designated as United Nations World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves. As a result, these areas and the land areas surrounding them may be subject to international land management rules ignoring the rights of private property owners in the area. State and local governments are left out of the decision making process when lands are designated as a part of these programs. In my own State of Washington, citizens and local officials have expressed the desire to have input into land use decisions. This is an opportunity they do not have when the United Nations makes land use policy. In 1996, the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Smithsonian, and the Bureau of Land Management contributed a total of $170,000 to the Biosphere Program, which has operated for the last 30 years, without authorization or oversight. It is time to eliminate this waste of taxpayer dollars and exercise our constitutional responsibility to account for the expenditures of all public money. This amendment will protect the rights of private property owners, and the integrity of our national park system. As a result, I urge you to support the Coburn-Stearns amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense approach to a small problem, frankly, that deals with 640 acres in the Wenatchee National Forest, where an individual wants to exchange it to potentially put this into development; but he cannot exchange it unless these boundaries are removed because the other Federal agency involved, the Bureau of Land Management, would have input into that process. So this simply removes the boundary to allow negotiations to start between this individual and BLM. It does not mandate anything, it just allows the process to start. I might add that I think this is important for Chelan County, because upwards of 75 percent of that county is in Federal control. An opportunity like this for potential development in the private sector, I think, is good for Chelan and I think good for that area. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] for moving expeditiously on this.