Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have been working closely with Mr. Hall to clarify the terms and conditions of Department of Energy property transfers. In Washington State, economic development activities are largely undertaken by ports. However, the Department has been unclear as to whether ports are eligible to apply for surplus Department of Energy property. I am pleased that the guidelines established pursuant to the Hall amendment will address these issues. Past Congresses have set up a series of provisions which govern the transfer of Federal Government property to other agencies, to local governments, or to economic development organizations. A special provision was created for Department of Energy waste cleanup sites, which frequently are contaminated, or near contaminated areas. By allowing the Government to transfer unproductive properties, the taxpayer will benefit by eliminating costly maintenance and security expenses. Second, it will provide additional opportunities for economic growth in communities which are suffering from dramatically reduced Department of Energy budgets. This is particularly important given the National Security Committee's decision to reduce section 3161 economic transition funding from $70 million to $22 million. Mr. Chairman, the work force in my district has been cut by 31 percent in the past 3 years. Savannah River is seeing a reduction of 1,800 employees as we speak. And Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats, and Fernald have all seen work force reductions of between 20 percent and 30 percent. This amendment will enable local economic development agencies to more easily acquire surplused Federal property and bring in private sector employers. I thank Mr. Hall and urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, the 1997 Department of Defense Authorization Act included several provisions designed to encourage the Department of Energy to implement reforms in the management of environmental cleanup programs. Unfortunately, Department management continues to struggle with ongoing cleanup programs, as evidenced by the problems facing the Pit 9 project in Idaho, and problems with the transition to new contractors at a number of sites. Recognizing these programs, a bipartisan group of lawmakers spent several months studying the Department system. Working with our colleagues, with our constituents, and with the Nation's Governors and State attorneys general, we came up with a series of recommendations which were designed to help cut through the redtape and bureaucracy surrounding the DOE cleanup system. These provisions were included in the House version of the 1997 Defense bill, and are now a part of Public Law 104-260. Unfortunately, the Department has virtually ignored congressional intent, and has failed to implement almost every single one of these recommendations. For instance: The Department has taken no action to reappoint site managers at each cleanup site, as required by section 3173 of the bill. The Department has failed to submit to Congress a report on section 3175, which requires the establishment of a technology deployment program at DOE sites. To the best of my knowledge, the Department has failed to comply with section 3174 of the law, which requires that the Secretary certify that any new Department paperwork requirements--called orders--are necessary for ``the protection of human health and the environment or safety, the fulfillment of legal requirements, or the conduct of critical administrative functions.'' This was meant to reduce the absolutely unbelievable amount of paperwork that exists in the DOE system. The Department has failed to work with State leaders to ensure that the provisions cover sites other than the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in my district, as suggested by section 3172. And until this past month, the Department had ignored provisions that Congress had included to speed up transfers of funding from one project to another. And although these limited reprogrammings have recently been approved at Hanford and Savannah River, Department budget officials are apparently misinterpreting even these simple procedures. Mr. Chairman, Congress included these provisions as a subtle reminder to the Department that the time for reform had come. The Department's decision to ignore these provisions demonstrates that they have little interest in taking the steps necessary to assure Congress that the $6 billion we appropriate for these programs is well spent. This amendment strengthens the existing provisions by making a number of the changes mandatory, instead of voluntary. It will empower the site manager to take action to enhance environmental restoration at the site. It puts a 2-month limit on the amount of time that DOE headquarters may take to review urgent budget transfer requests. It gives the site manager the responsibility for considering the cost and risk reduction benefits in making decisions in cleanup actions. Some have argued that this will grant unilateral authority to the site manager. That is simply not true. The Secretary will retain the ultimate decision making authority. And the Secretary is also given the authority to remove a site manager, if he sees fit. Mr. Chairman, it was my original intention that this amendment should cover all Department of Energy sites. However, we agreed at this point to limit it to the Hanford site, with the expectation that the Department will seek to apply similar provisions across the complex. This is a simple, but commonsense step towards imposing responsible management on a Department which has clearly demonstrated that it has had problems managing the billions of dollars that we have given them each year. As a result, I would urge my colleagues to support this provision.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, many Department of Energy sites have dramatically downsized over the past three years. In fact, each of the three largest sites--Hanford, Savannah River, and Oak Ridge--have seen reductions in employment of at least 30 percent during this time frame. Each has had its work force reduced by at least 3,100 employees. This has had a dramatic impact on these areas, especially those located away from a metropolitan area. In spite of these reductions, the committee cut section 3161 economic transition funding from $70 million to $22 million--more than a 60 percent reduction. My amendment would restore $44 million to the program, and require that the Department contract with a private auditing firm to conduct a study examining the impact of the program in the past 2 years, and an estimate of the number of jobs created in each community under the 3161 program. This is a responsible, commonsense way to ensure that current programs continue, but that we also take steps to ensure that the money is spent efficiently. If the report suggests otherwise, Congress can then take action to address the program's deficiencies. As a result, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As this debate concludes, it seems as if there is a pattern being set here, at least by the other side, that when we are debating a rule we will go off on other issues. And I think that is regrettable because this issue is a very important issue. While the minority obviously has a right to offer dissenting views and other motions, I think we should put those in perspective. So I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by reminding my colleagues that defeating the previous question is an exercise in futility because in case the minority wants to offer an amendment, that will be ruled out of order as nongermane to this rule. So as a matter of fact, the vote will be without substance. The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive or policy implications whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would provide for the Record an explanation of 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. H. Res. 153--Previous Question Amendment Text At the end of the resolution add the following new section: ``Section 2. No later than July 4, 1997, the House shall consider comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation under an open amendment process.'' The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's ``Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illionis) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership ``Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives,'' (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'' Deschler's ``Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,'' the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan. With that, 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], subcommittee chairman on this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules granted an unusual request from the Committee on Resources. As my colleagues know, under the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the Committee on Resources has typically brought its bills to the floor under open rules. However, in the case of H.R. 408, certain provisions of which also fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, special circumstances clearly warrant granting a modified closed rule. H.R. 408, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, essentially codifies an international agreement between 12 nations known as the Declaration of Panama. Were the House to make any significant changes to H.R. 408, this historic agreement would be lost. Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that the negotiations that produced this agreement could serve as a model for environmental policymaking on many other issues because virtually every important viewpoint on the tuna-dolphin debate was represented at the table. These negotiations not only involve the governments of 12 nations, but also include key representatives from both the environmental community and the fishing community. As a result, Mr. Speaker, it is an agreement that enjoys unusually broad support from Vice President Al Gore to the Committee on Resources chairman, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], from Greenpeace to the American Sports Fishing Association, and from the Tuna Boat Owners Association to the labor unions whose members work on those boats. The broad support was most visibly demonstrated on July 31 of last year when the House passed an almost identical bill by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 316 to 108. Clearly the time has come for the United States to ratify this important measure without further delay. For that reason and in recognition of the delicate nature of this international agreement, the Committee on Rules has reported a modified closed rule that allows for an up or down vote on the bill. The bill provides that in lieu of the Committee on Resources amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 shall be considered as the original bill for the purposes of amendment, and said amendment shall be considered as read. The rule further provides for the consideration of an amendment printed in the Congressional Record to be offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]) or his designee. Finally, the rule, which was agreed to in committee by voice vote without dissent, also provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, Members who are committed to protecting the dolphin populations in the eastern Pacific will agree that it is vital that we move forward with this legislation. During the coming debate, we will hear differing viewpoints on how this legislation may impact dolphins, but keep in mind that the Clinton administration's experts, our own Committee on Resources and a wide variety of environmental organizations all believe that this bill will save dolphins' lives and that it will also do so in a more effective way than current law will. H.R. 408 backs up that claim by mandating that every tuna boat operating in the eastern Pacific carry an observer to certify that not a single dolphin was killed when the tuna nets were hauled up. Even one dolphin death would prevent the entire catch from being sold in the United States as dolphin safe. Under today's standards American consumers do not have this kind of guarantee. However, this proposal is not just about saving dolphins; it is about preserving other endangered marine species, such as sea turtles as well as billfish and juvenile tuna. Those of us who support H.R. 408 are pleased that it will address the entire eastern Pacific ecosystem as a whole and not just one aspect of it. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, Members desiring to protect dolphins, sea turtles and other important marine life should support this rule to pass the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Slaughter], pending which I yield myself as much 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 153 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 117 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 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, this rule makes it in order at any time today, Wednesday April 23, or tomorrow, Thursday, April 24, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The rule also provides that the object of any motion to suspend the rules shall be announced from the floor at least 1 hour prior to its consideration. The rule further considers the Speaker or his designee to consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution. The bills that will be considered under suspension of the rules as a result of adopting this rule are noncontroversial and are very narrowly tailored, thus making it impractical to bring them up under an order of business resolution from our Committee on Rules. However, scheduling them for consideration today is necessary to ensure that our colleagues are here to do the very important committee work. For example, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services is meeting today to mark up the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act. In addition, the Committee on Ways and Means is meeting today to mark up two very important pieces of legislation, the Adoption Promotion Act and the Welfare Reform Technical Corrections Act. Finally, the Committee on International Relations is marking up several timely measures relating to Zaire and Cambodia. Mr. Speaker, a number of our colleagues have expressed concern about the pace in which this body has conducted its business during the first months of this session. To those Members, I would simply say that today's resolution makes it possible to keep moving ahead expeditiously on the important business the American people have sent us here to do. This is clearly a straightforward and noncontroversial rule. I would hope my colleagues here will debate it with their customary civility and pass it on without delay. 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.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, the following suspensions will be considered today: House Concurrent Resolution 8, H.R. 39, H.R. 449, H.R. 688, and H.R. 1272.

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, for the purpose 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 the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 412, the Oroville-Tonasket Claim Settlement and Conveyance Act under an open rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided 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 now printed in the bill as an original bill for purposes of amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. The rule further provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 412 approves the settlement reached between the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District in order to avoid litigation concerning the construction of the Oroville-Tonasket Unit Extension in my district. This settlement was initiated by the Bureau of Reclamation and is widely supported by all concerned parties, including the Colville Indian Tribes. Under the terms of the settlement, legislation must be enacted prior to April 15 of this year or the proposed settlement is voided. We began work on this bill in the 104th Congress and, thanks to the support of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle], H.R. 412 was reported by voice vote out of the Committee on Resources on March 5. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we will consider today would ratify what I consider to be a very solid agreement. It is the result of a good faith effort by the Interior Department and my constituents to resolve a situation that both parties wish had never developed. This agreement will save taxpayers millions of dollars and avoid a lawsuit the Federal Government would almost surely lose. Members doubting that the Government would lose this should ask the question, Why would the Bureau of Reclamation have been so eager to initiate this proposed settlement if they had not thought that they would be on the losing end? Mr. Speaker, we had hoped to bring H.R. 412 to the House under a suspension of the rules. However, during full committee markup we learned for the first time of the gentleman from California's concern about the bill and, accordingly, we are pleased to request an open rule so that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] may put before the full House an amendment seeking to perfect the bill. Although I plan to oppose the gentleman's amendment, I look forward to its consideration in the Committee of the Whole later today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and let me just give a little background on this bill from my perspective, and I want to respond to a few remarks that the gentleman from California made earlier. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a result of settlement negotiations between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Oroville-Tonasket irrigation district, which is located in my district in central Washington. As explained by my colleague from California, H.R. 412 transfers the title of the irrigation facilities to the local authorities and relieves the Bureau's responsibility for any repair, which is substantial, and future operational costs to the district. It also ends the current lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation. Let me assure my colleagues that this settlement is a fair solution for all parties involved. These facilities have not performed as the Bureau promised, and the district, after lengthy negotiations, has agreed to fix the current problems and pay for future operations of the facilities. To me, that is fair. The Bureau has said that they do not have the money to fix the problems of the Oroville-Tonasket irrigation district. They want the district to start paying for something that is not finished. That is a very important point, paying for something that is not finished. So we have a long court case ahead of us, and one that the Bureau, in all probability, would lose. I have seen the problems firsthand, and these are pictures of some of the work that was done and which is at issue. These are main water- carrying pipes, 24- and 21-inch pipes that have broken in 2 different years after it was supposed to have been substantially complete. I can tell my colleagues, in an area where rainfall is approximately 10 to 12 inches, to have a break of irrigation pipes in July and in April, at the time when the irrigation season has started and in the middle of the irrigation season, is not a very good situation. This is the work that is in dispute right now. There are other pictures here also to substantiate. This is a blow-up of one of the other pictures I alluded to earlier. I have seen the project firsthand, and this project is a poorly constructed irrigation unit that has plagued farmers in my district, frankly, long enough. Right now, over 1,000 farms depend on these irrigation facilities. And I want to emphasize the point that the rainfall in that area is 10 to 15 inches. We need the irrigation. Apple, pear and cherry orchards, some of the most valuable and world renowned crops of Washington State, are jeopardized every time one of the Bureau's inadequate pipes explode. Every time the system cannot pump clean water and instead pumps mud, which has happened, as we can see the silt here, where it pumps mud through the farmers' pipes and out through their sprinkler heads, and that has happened, where they have had mud literally come out of the sprinkler heads, I can tell my colleagues that the trees they are trying to irrigate are in jeopardy. A perfect example of the problems associated with these facilities happened in 1990, and those were the pictures I just showed, where the main pipes exploded. I know some of my colleagues are not from farming districts, but I can assure them that those people who depend on water at the opportune time need to have this water when it is timely. What is the solution, then, after this problem that has built up over time? Clearly, the easiest solution would be to come back to Congress and ask for another appropriation to fix something that was mishandled in the first place. That costs money. It would probably waste taxpayers' dollars one more time. The irrigation district came to this conclusion also, and they started negotiations with the Bureau. So what we need to do is turn these facilities over to the irrigation district so they can upgrade the facilities and pump water, not mud, to the farmers of central Washington. Preferably, I would like to see them working in perfect order before the Bureau transfers them to the district but, frankly, that is not going to happen. The best that we can do is let the district replace the pipes and control the mud entering the system and get the Federal Government out of the Oroville- Tonasket irrigation district. Let us stop mishandling this facility, let us end the potential $51 million lawsuit against the U.S. Government, and help assure the farmers of my district a stable source of irrigated water for the future. I think this is a fiscally responsible solution. In fact, I might add, it is endorsed by the organization known as Citizens Against Government Waste, that all of us are familiar with. I want to respond to a few points that the gentleman from California, the distinguished ranking member, made. He opened his remarks by talking about this is a giveaway of $14 million. The $14 million that the gentleman is alluding to would be the potential payback if everything were set and the contract was fulfilled. This contract has not been fulfilled. So there is nothing there from that standpoint. We are not giving away anything other than air, and no one would want to pay for air if it was not performing correctly. That is really what the issue is. The gentleman also talked about the power issue. And I think the gentleman from California recognizes that in the West, when we started reclaiming land with the Bureau of Reclamation, irrigation always got first call at that power. That was the incentive to allow people to come out and to create new wealth. This was all part of reclamation law. It applies to Washington State, it applies to California, it applies to Colorado, it applies to Idaho and Oregon, and all the Western States. This is nothing unusual. As a matter of fact, when the gentleman suggests that we shift costs to the customers that are using the electricity, I might add that the people that use electricity are in the Northwest. We accept that. Finally, it has been alluded to that we should correct this lemon law. I will give an analogy that I think is appropriate in this case. I ask my colleagues to put themselves in the situation where they have a house and that house is substantially built and completed and paid for, with just the exception of maybe a small part of the mortgage and the contractor is asked to come in and build a guest room. As a result of going through that process, the contractor had to get into the house, change the roof, change the electricity, change the heating and all those sort of things. Now, there was an agreed-upon time line that this should be completed and all of a sudden the contractor says, Okay, I want to get paid because that was what was in the contract. At that time it rains and the discovery is made that the roof leaks, that the wiring may cause a fire, and the duct work does not work. Do any of my colleagues think they would want to pay that contractor for that work? Of course not. No one would do that. As a matter of fact, we would probably sue the contractor and try to get the thing corrected. That is precisely what is going on here with the Oroville-Tonasket irrigation district. It is nonperformance by the Bureau. And one of the reasons why this nonperformance and why this analogy works so well in my mind is the Bureau sees this makes sense. That is why they asked to enter into this agreement with the irrigation district. So, Mr. Chairman, this bill, I think, corrects something. It is a settlement bill. It is a bill that will transfer authority and obligations and whatever lawsuits that may come up in the future away from the Federal Government and put it back to the district. Now, as a result of that, the CBO has scored this and the CBO expects that the Federal Government would probably save money if this bill were enacted. CBO estimates that there would be no effect on 1997 spending and that any potential effect on 1998 spending would be savings relative to the current law. So this is budget neutral and makes perfectly good sense to me that this bill ought to be passed. And, as a matter of fact, in the long run, because if we avoid a lawsuit, it would save a potential easily of $50 million. So I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 412 when we vote on final passage. I would also urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from California, because if that amendment were to be adopted, it would, frankly, be a killer amendment on a bill that settles a potential claim.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 94 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We will discuss, I think, at length the amendment that will be offered, and that appears to be the crux of the argument that the gentleman from California is talking about, is that part of the fair value, and I think that is certainly something valid to debate. But I want to make this point. This irrigation district was started right after the turn of the century when all the reclamation projects in the West were started. Part of this settlement, which has already been paid, the $350,000, satisfies the repayment obligation back of the initial irrigation project. What is in dispute here is the extension unit. That is what is in dispute. The extension unit, of course, affects the whole district, and that is why the Bureau settled precisely this way with the irrigation district, by saying, OK, the whole thing really is in jeopardy. We acknowledge that you needed to fulfill your obligation earlier, which is part of this settlement. The irrigation district has some claims currently on the extension unit against the Bureau in excess of $4 million. The current value of the extension unit is slightly over $4 million. In other words, it is about a wash. When you sit down and negotiate these things, they say, OK, let us just kind of wash these things out. In return for that, of course, you have to assume all of the liabilities and all of the obligations heretofore, and if there are any claims against the irrigation district, you cannot come back to the Federal Government and ask for relief. So the irrigation district, after being under Federal Bureau law for all these years, is really assuming quite an obligation that could happen, because they are going to have to clean up this district, that, I might add, their operation and maintenance has increased by some 200 percent over the period of time that this project started. So there has been a real time cost to those irrigators. I can tell you, if you are in cherries, you are in cherries and you are ready to harvest and all of a sudden a rainstorm comes. Believe me, your whole crop can be wiped out in one day. They roll the dice on this and unfortunately, I will not say unfortunately, I admire farmers because they do that. But within this district, they are assuming a responsibility in the future on this, and I think the fact that the Bureau in this dispute felt that they may in fact lose this suit, that is why they wanted to work out an accommodation with the irrigation district. I think that is why this is in the best interests, and I think that is why the Department of Interior and the President support this settlement claim. So I think that we can debate the merits of the gentleman's amendment when he brings it up later on, but I think for now, Mr. Chairman, that this bill, H.R. 412, needs to be adopted by this House so we can get this legislation passed, so that the claim can be settled before April 15, 1997.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, let us take a look at the facts. This is a very narrowly drawn claim settlement bill. There is no net market value to this project. For example, the CBO in their scoring of this, weighed what the district owed versus what the Federal Government was for and determined that the Government would save money by having the Government unload this district. In other words, liabilities in this case exceeds the value. I believe that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] knows this. I believe that he knows there is no market value to this project. I believe that he knows that no one except the district would even consider taking over this project; and furthermore, Washington State law prohibits any irrigation district in that State from raising its fees to purchase a project. So I wonder why is the gentleman offering this amendment at this eleventh hour? I think it is simple. I think the gentleman knows that this amendment would kill the agreement between the Clinton administration and the local irrigation district; and I might emphasize, by law, this agreement must be approved by April 15 of this year. Failure to ratify this agreement will simply send the issue back to the courts and will mean the district would pursue its pending $51 million lawsuit. That is a bad deal for Uncle Sam, and it is a bad deal for this Congress. That is why the Clinton administration, and not the local irrigation district, proposed the transfer of this facility. It is the only way for the Government to avoid millions of dollars in court costs, millions of dollars in repair costs, and millions of dollars in damages that they would be forced to pay if they should lose the court case. Mr. Chairman, let me propose three reasons to oppose this amendment. First, a vote for the Miller amendment is a vote to stick the taxpayers with tens of millions of dollars in repair costs. Second, a vote for the Miller amendment is a vote to stick the taxpayers with untold billions of dollars in damages as a result of the court case. Finally, a vote for the Miller amendment is to send the issue back to the court and stick the taxpayers with hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional legal fees to the Government. As I mentioned from the outset, this is a very narrowly drawn bill. Mr. Chairman, as a result then, I urge my colleagues to oppose the feel-good Miller amendment and support my commonsense bill to relieve the Federal Government of this tremendous liability.