Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is really what I would characterize as commonsense legislation because no American citizen should be forced to pay taxes in two separate States at the same time. But that is exactly what is happening to several dozen Army Corps of Engineers workers in the Pacific Northwest. The State of Oregon has mistakenly determined that it has the authority to impose its Oregon income tax on 79 corps employees who live in Washington State. These workers do not work in Oregon. They do not cross into Oregon during the workday. In fact, many of them work entirely on the Washington side of the Columbia River, and seldom, if ever, step onto the four dams which separate the two States. This is not the first time this issue has come before Congress. Several years ago, we had a similar concern for the tax treatment of Federal employees working for Amtrak. They frequently would travel into other States, and those States had attempted to impose their State tax, in addition to the State tax of the State of residence. Congress recognized that this double taxation was unfair, and corrected the problem in the Amtrak Improvement Act of 1990. This situation is even more clear cut. In the case of Amtrak, workers would actually cross into the work in the second State. In the case of these workers, they do not cross into Oregon. They do not use Oregon facilities. They do not drive on Oregon roads. And since they already pay all applicable Washington State taxes, they should not be forced to pay twice. In addition, this Congress just passed the Source Tax reform bill. We established a precedent by determining that pension taxes should be taken by the State of residence. The very same principle applies in this case. Taxes should be imposed by the State of residence. Mr. Speaker, the impact of this bill is minimal. As I mentioned, we believe that it applies to approximately 79 workers at four Federal dams. It would have no fiscal impact on the United States. It would have minimal impact on the State of Oregon. But it would have a tremendous impact on 79 working families who are struggling to make ends meet. That is why the union which represents not only these workers, but also the several hundred Oregon workers who work at these dams, strongly supports my legislation. As a result, I would strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this important bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4236, the omnibus parks bill. This bipartisan legislation will improve the lives of thousands of Americans. I am particularly interested in this legislation because it includes a provision, the Hanford Reach Preservation Act, which impacts my district directly. I want to thank my fellow colleagues on the House Resources Committee, in particular Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairman Hansen, for their hard work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Hanford Reach Preservation Act makes permanent the current moratorium on dam building, channeling, and navigational projects along the stretch of the Columbia River known as the Hanford Reach. Located in the heart of my Central Washington Congressional District, the Hanford Reach is regarded by many as the last free flowing stretch of the Columbia River. Running through the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the Reach is also the location of some of the healthiest salmon runs anywhere in the Pacific Northwest. For the past 8 years, the Federal Government has played an important role in protecting the Reach by prohibiting its agencies from constructing dams, channels, and other projects on this part of the River. The provision included in this bill permanently extends the current moratorium on these activities that is set to expire November 6, 1996. The Hanford Reach Preservation Act will make a significant contribution to the continued protection of this pristine area. While more needs to be resolved within the local community before this area is completely protected, this language is a positive step in the right direction. H.R. 4236 also includes a number of other positive proposals which improve the condition of our national parks, schools, and rivers. I also support this bill for what is not included in the package, namely a provision to establish a National Heritage Area program. While I have serious concerns about the individual heritage area designations in this bill, I am relieved that private property owners in my district will not have to worry about such designations infringing upon their Fifth Amendment rights. Again, I thank my colleagues for their assistance and strongly urge the House to vote in favor of this measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my legislation, H.R. 2292, the Hanford Reach Preservation Act. I want to thank my fellow colleagues on the House Resources Committee, in particular Chairman Young and subcommittee Chairman Hansen, for their expeditious consideration of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, title I of H.R. 2292 makes permanent the current moratorium on dam building, channeling, and navigational projects along the stretch of the Columbia River known as the Hanford Reach. Located in the heart of my central Washington congressional district, the Hanford Reach is the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River. Running through the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the reach is also the location of some of the healthiest salmon runs anywhere in the Pacific Northwest. For the past 8 years, the Federal Government has played an important role in protecting the reach by prohibiting its agencies from constructing dams, channels, and other projects on this part of the river. H.R. 2292 permanently extends the current moratorium on these activities that is set to expire November 6, 1996. The original moratorium was a direct response to proposals that would have opened the reach to barge traffic. We have since learned that making the reach navigational is not only unwise ecologically but is also impractical. H.R. 2292 ensures that we will never consider this policy again. The Hanford Reach Preservation Act will make a significant contribution to the continued protection of this pristine area. While more needs to be resolved within the local community before this area is completely protected, H.R. 2292 is a positive step in the right direction. Again, I thank my colleagues for their assistance and strongly urge the House to vote in favor of this measure. Mr. Miller of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in strong support of H.R. 2518. This noncontroversial bill authorizes the transfer of 122 acres of Wenatchee National Forest land that includes a wastewater treatment plant, for 109 acres of unencumbered land along the Wenatchee River currently owned by Chelan Public Utility District No. 1. In recent years, the septic system serving area businesses and private residences has failed due to rapid growth and development throughout the Lake Wenatchee community. The PUD will use the Forest Service facility to provide adequate services to this area. H.R. 2518 merely implements this commonsense solution developed by the local community. The bill has the strong support of the PUD, the Forest Service, and the local county commissioners. All sides agree that the transfer of the Forest Service's wastewater treatment plant is the answer to the Lake Wenatchee community's current problems. I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Hansen and Ranking Member Richardson for their prompt attention to this bill and urge its passage today.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that. I would also like the chairman to know, because we have been discussing other issues mainly with the Department of Energy on environmental cleanup efforts, I want him to know, however, that the House and Senate have accepted legislation dealing with this from a structural standpoint. Those issues are in committee right now and should be resolved in the authorization bill. So I wanted to let the gentleman know that that is proceeding on even though it is out of his jurisdiction. I also appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with us to ensure that the savings reached in the new Hanford contracts which are in my district can be used to compensate for the Department's plan to transfer $185 million in cleanup into an insurance fund. I appreciate his work on this because this is critical to my district, and, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and also associate myself with the remarks that were made earlier in his behalf on his retirement. We have worked closely together over the last 2 years and I greatly appreciate his hard work on this legislation. What I would like to do, however, Mr. Chairman, is inquire about report language that has been included in the Senate bill. This encourages the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into an energy exchange with non-Federal hydro projects on the Columbia River that are affected by Federal fish protection measures. The Douglas County PUD district estimates that it loses almost one- fifth of its energy-carrying capability as a result of the Federal fish protection programs. The cost of these losses, which do not take into account the PUD's own fish protection costs, have nearly tripled in this past decade. The Senate language is intended to urge BPA to provide winter energy to non-Federal projects in return for delivery of an equal amount of energy generated in those projects from the increased Federal fish flows in the spring and the summer. Such an exchange is similar to the kinds of federally authorized seasonal exchanges BPA already makes with utilities in California. This is also specifically provided under by the Northwest Power Planning Act. I believe that this issue is best resolved between BPA and those interested non-Federal utilities. However, I am willing to explore a solution to this problem as a member of the House Committee on Resources, should I be convinced that BPA is not negotiating in good faith. Will the chairman be willing to work with us to arrive at an acceptable resolution to this problem?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Market Access Program is critical to the continued expansion of U.S. agricultural exports, and is one of the few Government programs that really works. Virtually all funding is used to combat unfair trade practices, and the amount we are spending is almost nothing in comparison to the huge export subsidies of our foreign competitors. Our trading partners would love to see funding for this program reduced. In fact, it has already been reduced by over two- thirds since it was first enacted. The fact is, the Market Access Program has proven to be an effective method of expanding our agricultural exports. It has sustained American jobs and contributed to the reduction of our trade imbalance. For every $1 in MAP funding, sales of U.S. exports increase by $16. Ultimately, the increased economic activity created by the Market Access Program supports as many as 28,000 American jobs through expanded exports. The argument has been made that the types of promotional activities implemented through the MAP will go on regardless of Government funding. However, my colleagues should understand that the participants match the Government funding on a one-to-one basis. The argument also ignores the fact that the program is targeted towards nations which utilize unfair trade barriers, such as Japan and the European community. To cite just a few examples, my colleagues may be interested in the following MAP success stories from my State of Washington alone: In Mexico, MAP funds helped boost United States exports of apples from just 574,000 cartons to over 4 million cartons in just 1 year. In Egypt, MAP funds helped convince potential buyers of the quality and value of United States wheat flour--leading to contracts for 427,000 metric tons of flour in 1993. In Germany, MAP funds supported market development and awareness activities--leading to an increase of United States asparagus exports of 14 percent. I urge my colleagues to support economic growth and jobs by opposing amendments to eliminate funding for the successful Market Access Program.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 3068) to accept the request of the Prairie Island Indian Community to revoke their charter of incorporation issued under the Indian Reorganization Act.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 3068, authored by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], is to accept the request of the Prairie Island Indian Community to revoke their charter of incorporation issued under the Indian Reorganization Act. The Federal charter of incorporation for the community contained a provision which requires that it can only be revoked by an act of Congress. The revocation was requested by the community because the community has never used it in the management of its enterprises, finding it to be outdated, ineffective, and cumbersome. Instead, the community relies on provisions in its constitution. A similar revocation relating to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe was included in Public Law 104-109. I ask for the Members' support for this noncontroversial measure.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just passed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in support of this amendment. I applaud the committee's decision to accept my amendment in this end bloc amendment, providing funding for the Russian Reactor Conversion Program. I spite of the fact that the cold war is over, Russia continues to use many of its nuclear reactors to produce weapons grade plutonium. My amendment, which utilizes existing funding, will allow us to shut down these reactors, reducing the direct threat to the United States. Nearly everyone I talked to supports this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I also want to take a minute to mention an issue of particular interest to my district. This bill includes provisions in the committee mark to streamline the DOE's environmental management program, including, No. 1, granting additional authority to local site managers to cut through redtape and get the cleanup job done, placing strict limits on burdensome paperwork known as DOE orders and otherwise streamlining the DOE orders, and more important, requiring performance based contracts to assure contractors are given incentives to spend our tax dollars wisely. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. For more than a decade, we have sat by as our Nation's defense spending has been dramatically reduced. In fact, spending on procurement has fallen by 70 percent since 1985. Thus, the committee's action to increase funding over the President's request is a welcome change--one which will ensure that our military remains the best equipped and best trained in the world. I also want to take a minute to mention two issues that are of particular interest to my district. First, I applaud the committee's decision to accept my amendment providing funding for the Russian Reactor Conversion Program. In spite of the fact that the cold war is over, Russia continues to use many of its nuclear reactors to produce weapons-grade plutonium. The Department of Energy runs a small program which focuses on either shutting down these reactors, or converting them so that they will not be able to produce plutonium. The program also leverages U.S. expertise in spent nuclear fuel management, in order to prevent reprocessing. My amendment asks for no new funding. It will fund the program out of unspent balances from prior years. Nearly everyone who I have spoken to supports the program, and the debate thus far has simply been over which Federal agency should fund it--not whether it should be funded. By authorizing the use of existing funds, my amendment will preserve an important non-proliferation initiative, without taking funding away from crucial defense programs. A related DOE project, the International Nuclear Safety Program, works to ensure the security and safety of Russian power-producing nuclear reactors. I understand that the subcommittee chairman believes that funding for this program should come out of foreign assistance funding, rather than out of defense spending, and I would propose that we work together to see that this program is adequately funded in this manner. Second, I applaud the committee for accepting my legislation to streamline the Department of Energy's Environmental Management Program. My bill codifies important steps that the Department has taken in the past few months, including: Granting additional authority to local site managers to cut through the redtape and get the cleanup job done; Allowing site managers to transfer funding to the most critical cleanup projects; Placing strict new limits on burdensome internal paperwork requirements--also known as DOE orders; Encouraging performance based contracts, to ensure that private contractors are given an incentive to spend our tax dollars wisely; Encouraging streamlined approval processes for new technology; and, Allowing budget savings at cleanup sites to be used for other key projects. These provisions are a significant step towards fundamental reform of the DOE cleanup program. They will not only speed progress made on cleanup, but ensure that Federal resources are used effectively. As a result, I strongly urge that my colleagues support this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for having this special order. The discussion that we have here has been, frankly, very interesting. What I would like to bring to this is the kind of a discussion from a macro standpoint. You have been talking about a micro standpoint. When I look at reforming the Endangered Species Act, I look at bringing good science in as being very important, as the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin, has said, and also protecting private property rights. But in my area in the Northwest, I want to talk about it from a macro standpoint, because it has a huge impact beyond what we talked about. For example, the power in the Northwest comes from falling water. About 90 percent of our power comes from water over dams. Whenever we deal with water, of course, what are we dealing with? We are dealing with fish. We have a potential listing of several species of salmon, as the chairman knows, in the Pacific Northwest, Snake River salmon, Columbia River salmon. I can tell you from a scientific standpoint, and this is the important part, from a scientific standpoint there is little difference between the Snake River salmon or the Columbia River salmon. One kind goes up to the tributary, and the other continues on up. Yet, because of that potential listing and because, in part, of the bad science, that has been part of what is being suggested by NMFS we have drawdowns not based on science, where it simply has not worked. I think what the committee has done as part of a reform to this plan is to bring the local community, the State, the local counties, whatever the case may be, into saving those species. We have, for example, in place in the big Columbia system an agreement that was brought about some 8 years ago by local entities, we call them the big Columbia PUD's, the public power systems that we have there, it is called the Bernita Bar agreement. What it has done is enhanced the spawning grounds on the last free-flowing stretch of the river. This is precisely what people thought needed to be accomplished earlier on, and it was done on a local level. The way the act is written now, those sorts of things are not encouraged. What the committee has passed out, that is encouraged, so I congratulate the chairman of the committee for taking the lead on this. Hopefully, we can get something passed. I also want to commend him for his leadership in introducing a comprehensive proposal that makes common sense reforms to the ESA. As a member of Representative Richard Pombo's House ESA Task Force, which held a series of field hearings throughout the country last year on this issue, I am quite pleased that he included so many of our recommendations in his bill, H.R. 2275. Reforming this well-intentioned but out-of-control law has been one of my top priorities in the 104th Congress. The problem with the current version is that it does not properly balance our environmental needs with our economic realities. I strongly believe these goals are not mutually exclusive. The Endangered Species Act is having a devastating impact on our local economy throughout the Pacific Northwest. Whether it be loggers, farmers, water users, or any other hard working man or woman dependent on our natural resources, the ESA is in desperate need of reform. My own area of central Washington is certainly no stranger to the existing problems of the ESA. As the location of many large dams and irrigation districts along the Columbia and Snake Rivers that generate power and provide water for our farmers, we have been faced in recent years with an ESA mandated National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] Plan to protect several species of salmon that will bring the total cost for salmon protection for our region to $500 million. Since 1982, our region has already spent $1.5 billion for salmon restoration. If we do not reform the ESA soon, the Pacific Northwest is likely to spend close to $1 billion annually on salmon recovery alone by the turn of the 21st century. The NMFS proposal recommends depleting the storage reservoirs on the Columbia/Snake mainstem by 13 to 16 million acre feet [MAF]. Up to 90 percent of the total storage capacity will be used for flow augmentation at the annual cost of $200 to $300 million. Worst of all, the best and most current science on this subject developed at the University of Washington indicates that in-river survival is better than previously expected, in the 90 percent survival range. That information, when included in current modeling, such as the University of Washington's CRiSP, Columbia River Salmon Passage Model, report indicates that reservoir depletion beyond some 5 million acre- feet will not increase survival. Clearly, the science upon which NMFS is basing its recommendations is highly suspect. However, NMFS seems to have ignored this evidence and concluded that only dam operations are the problem. The point is we are about to enter into a process that will further restrict the economic opportunities of thousands of hard working men and women in our area with little or no scientific evidence that this plan will enhance or even protect existing salmon populations. There are many factors behind the recent decline in salmon runs including the increase in ocean temperatures off the coast of Oregon and Washington, better known as El Nino. This increase in temperatures off our coasts has even caused declines in salmon runs and populations in rivers and streams where no dams exist. At the same time, as I understand it, salmon runs in Chairman Young's home State of Alaska remain much stronger due in part to significantly lower ocean temperatures. Let me be clear, my constituents and I are committed to protecting our precious salmon resource in the Northwest. However, we must do so in a common sense way that assures that these runs are protected for future generations to enjoy at minimal cost to our rural communities that depend on our dams for their economic survival. One of the problems with the current law is that it mandates that all listed species be restored to original numbers. In some cases, this is a worthy and realistic goal. However, in other instances, this is counterproductive to the goal of species recovery. For example, in my area of the country, there is the Snake River Sockeye salmon run that we are spending tens of millions of dollars in an attempt to restore to original numbers. Almost everyone admits that it is virtually impossible to completely recover this run. However, under the current ESA, we are being forced to do just that when we could be spending this money more wisely on improving salmon runs that are genetically indistinguishable from the Snake River Sockeye but have a far better chance of complete recovery. Under H.R. 2275, the ESA is amended so that salmon runs like the Snake River Sockeye are protected. At the same time, the bill gives greater consideration to enhancing healthier runs that have a better chance of full recovery. This change in the law will lead to a much larger and healthier salmon supply for our entire region. When one considers the ESA's current problems with the fact that only a handful of species nationwide have fully recovered to the point where they could be removed from the list since the act was first enacted in 1973, it is quite evident that the current law is neither protecting species nor families that depend on our natural resources for their livelihoods. One of the major reasons for the act's failure to fully recover species is the set of perverse incentives that it encourages. The current law punishes people for protecting habitant on their property and rewards those who develop their land with no consideration for wildlife. These perverse incentives were mentioned over and over again by witnesses at our task force field hearings. That is why I am delighted that Chairman Young has included a number of our recommended reforms in his bill. First and foremost among our task force's concerns was the issue of compensation. H.R. 2275 encourages property owners to cooperate with the Federal Government in our efforts to protect species by compensating them when restrictions imposed by the ESA diminish their property's value by 20 percent or more. This much needed reform will not only encourage greater cooperation between the public and private sectors in protecting species but will also force the Federal Government to prioritize our limited financial resources on species that are most in need of recovery. Rather than scattering our current resources on fully recovering all species, as the current act calls for, H.R. 2275 will lead to more recoveries and many more ESA success stories. Equally important, our bill also encourages stronger science by requiring that current factual information be peer reviewed. In addition, the bill makes all data used in the decision process open to the public. Mr. Chairman, I have barely scratched the surface in my limited time here this afternoon of all the improvements H.R. 2275 makes to the Endangered Species Act. Our task force continues to work hard in support of passing H.R. 2275 which addresses so many of our people's concerns. I am pleased that Chairman Young and Congressman Pombo have taken the lead on this legislation and look forward to continuing to work together on reforming this act so that it will better protect species and communities had hit by the current law.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That is right. If we look at what the intention of the act was 23 years ago, and you voted for it because the intention was good, that action by this farmer would do nothing at all to enhance the species. It is counter to what we are trying to do. Why? Because of the heavyhanded administration coming from the Federal Government, because that is what this act says should be done. So it needs to be reformed, it needs to be reformed to bring the local people involved in this sort of stuff, but more important, common sense, and let us protect private property rights, because after all, that is a constitutional requirement.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. One last thing I would mention, if I may, Mr. Speaker. That is that we had a meeting of some local people from our State, talking about the need to amend this act. One local farmer made a very profound statement. I think it is indicative of probably all of us across the West that have private property, where the treat would come by having an endangered species found on our private property. This particular farmer said, ``If I saw a potential endangered species walk across my property, my first reaction would be to shoot it and kill it and not tell anybody.''

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pombo-Chambliss amendment to implement an effective guestworker program Mr. Chairman, my constituents in central Washington State are no different from the great majority of Americans who support immigration reform. But my constituents realize that our biggest industry-- agriculture--must be protected. The fact of the matter is that agriculture is a seasonal business. Pruning, thinning, and harvesting all have their time throughout the year. These activities are labor intensive. And the labor required has historically been migrant labor. To not recognize this basic fact places a huge burden on the largest industry in Washington State. The Pombo-Chambliss amendment addresses this concern and, at the same time transfers the enforcement burden to the Department of Labor to correct what was a shortcoming of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. At the same time, in conjunction with a strengthened Border Patrol, the Pombo amendment would reduce illegal immigration by providing incentives for seasonal workers to comply with our immigration laws. I strongly support this commonsense proposal, and encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Pombo-Chambliss amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise in strong support of the Tate- Hastings-Roukema amendment--an amendment which will finally bring force to our Nation's immigration laws. The United States has always been a beacon of hope for millions of people worldwide. And although immigration laws may not be popular, they are nevertheless vital to America's efforts to control our Nation's borders and protect our national interest for all citizens. Unfortunately, every year, millions of illegal aliens intentionally break these laws. According to the U.S. Border Patrol, the estimated number of illegal aliens in our State of Washington has jumped from 40,000 to 100,000 in the past decade, and many of these illegal immigrants have settled in my agricultural district. In addition, many aliens not only enter the United States illegally, they thumb their nose at the system by forging documents and falsifying Social Security numbers to obtain employment and social welfare benefits. Yet, even when these individuals are apprehended and returned to their native country, many return again and again without additional penalty. As a result, additional burdens are placed on our local law enforcement officials, jails, and local and State governments. Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers more than $13.4 billion in 1992--draining the budgets of State and local governments. What's more, illegal immigrants make up more than 25 percent of the Federal prison population, and over 450,000 aliens are criminals on probation or parole. Breaking the law also undermines the incentive of all immigrants to enter the United States legally. This amendment is fair, and is simply common sense. Our immigration policies were enacted for a reason, and must be enforced. If individuals want to risk breaking our immigration laws, then they ought to face the consequences if they are caught. It is no longer enough to give illegal aliens a free trip back to their homeland with the hope that they will not return. We must also send potential illegal aliens a clear warning: ``one strike, and you're out.'' In other words, if you break the law, you forfeit the privilege that millions of Americans have struggled to achieve. I strongly urge the passage of this important, commonsense amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support H.R. 4, the welfare reform conference report. I believe this legislation is a critical first step in overhauling our bloated and destructive welfare system. The current welfare system has failed the people it was created to help and worse--it has created an unfortunate cycle of dependency. The American taxpayer can no longer afford to foot the bill for people unwilling to accept responsibility for themselves. Congress has no intention of turning its back on the most needy in society. Instead, we want to offer a new approach to welfare that gives recipients a hand up--not a hand out. By implementing strict work requirements, emphasizing personal responsibility, and returning power to the States, we will not only provide great benefits to society and taxpayers, but most importantly, to welfare recipients themselves. The most important change Congress can make in reforming our welfare system is to return power to the States and local communities. This legislation does just that by reducing the amount of control over welfare programs here in Washington, DC, and restoring authority and responsibility to where it belongs--to the people. H.R. 4 was designed after working with Governors to address their concerns of unnecessary Federal regulation and micromanaged bureaucratic programs. States have proven to be more successful and innovative than the Federal Government in fixing our failed welfare system. I want to give States and local communities the opportunity to experiment, not shackle them with excessive regulations and costly paperwork. It is at the State and local level where welfare program managers deal with welfare recipients--and that is where decisions should be made. And in order for this to happen, states need flexibility. This legislation will let the people know we have heard their cry for welfare reform. We have listened to welfare recipients and provided them opportunities to get off welfare and into work. We have listened to the taxpayers and are watching out for their hard-earned tax dollars. And, we have listened to the Governors and given them the flexibility they need to truly end welfare as we know it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this package. Balancing the Federal budget is not about keeping tidy books, it is about saving our children's future. A child born today will pay $187,000 in taxes, just to pay their share of interest on the debt. According to the President's own budget, our children and grandchildren will face lifetime tax rates of over 80 percent to pay our bills. Budget deficits sap private investment and drive up interest rates. Debt service costs the average taxpayer nearly $800 a year in taxes. Ending these deficits is the most important economic program this Congress can pass. Under our plan, the budget is balanced not through cuts as some have alleged but through reductions in the rate of spending growth. Under our plan, revenues continue to climb even after our tax relief is enacted and even using conservative economic growth estimates. There are no smoke and mirrors here. If this plan is enacted, we will reach a balanced budget in the year 2002. A balanced budget will lower interest rates by as much as 2 percent. Families, farmers, small businesses, students, anyone who buys a home or finances a car will benefit from this legislation. A family with an average mortgage of $75,000 will save $37,000 in interest over the life of the loan, an annual savings of $1,200. A student with an average loan of $11,000--over 10 years--will save $2,160 in interest over the life of the student loan, an annual savings of $216. A family buying a $15,000 car will save $900 in interest over the life of the car loan, an annual savings of $225. What is more, balancing the budget will allow us to finally start reigning in the ballooning Federal debt and reducing the huge sums we spend on interest--$227 billion this year alone--on the debt. This is a historic day. We are going to pass the first balanced budget in more than a quarter century. This blueprint will give American families the right to keep more of their hard earned money, lead to lower interest rates and security for our seniors. Mr. Speaker, in 1994, the American people spoke loudly and clearly about changing the direction of Government--away from unending deficits, away from out-of-control spending and soaring debt, and away from big Government policies that waste taxpayers' dollars. I am proud of this Congress--the first Congress in years to truly keep its word with the American people.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1014. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Colorado, Chairman Schaefer, and the subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Pallone, for their expeditious handling of this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1014 is a noncontroversial bill that merely extends the time limitation for a FERC-issued hydroelectric license for the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. Located on the Tieton River in Yakima County, WA, the proposed project which began in the late 1970's calls for construction of a 13.6 megawatt hydroelectric project at the existing Tieton Dam. In recent years, the irrigation district has entered into serious negotiations with Benton and Franklin County Public Utility Districts [PUD's] on a power purchase agreement. These efforts culminated last year in meetings between the irrigation district, PUD's, underwriters, and bond counsel to discuss a formal memorandum of understanding [MOU]. It was determined, however, that a number of additional tasks must be completed before construction starts. The PUD's came to the conclusion that it was not feasible or realistic to meet these requirements by May 31, 1995, the most recent FERC deadline. Consequently, they have sought an extension for start of construction. Project supporters tell me that if this deadline can be extended, a power purchase agreement could be worked out so that construction can be started as early as next fall. H.R. 1014 simply extends the FERC deadline for completion of this license to May 31, 2001. When completed and [[Page H 12148]] paid for, the low cost, reliable power produced from this project would be available to serve the local area and would reduce power lost from wheeling over longer distances. After repayment of revenue bonds, the benefits from power revenue would go to reducing future operation and maintenance costs of the irrigation system. The project also provides many short term benefits for the public at large including construction of a nearby campground and enhanced recreational fishing. Mr. Speaker, there is strong support within the local community for this legislation, which was unanimously approved by the House Commerce Committee last month. All funding will come from bonds secured by the Power Purchase Agreement. No Federal funding is required. Again, I thank my colleagues for their assistance in making possible the passage of H.R. 1014. I strongly urge this House to vote in favor of this measure.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this package. Balancing the Federal budget is critical to the future of our country. As a direct result of decades of deficit spending, each child born in America today will be burdened with a tax bill for $187,000, just to pay for the interest on the national debt over his or her lifetime. By leading directly to lower interest rates, this package will lower housing costs, reduce car expenses, lower college costs, cut taxes, and provide more jobs for all Americans. For those of us who represent rural communities, lower interest rates will save family farmers nearly $15 billion during the next 7 years by reducing farm debt. Mr. Speaker, I ran and was elected on a pledge to balance the budget in 7 years. That was my promise to the people of Washington State's Fourth Congressional District. I am proud to cast my vote today to keep our commitment to the American people and urge each of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, let me clearly say to my fellow colleagues in the House that I strongly believe in the sanctity of life, and it is with great reluctance that I vote today for the Defense appropriations conference report. I remain concerned that the language of this conference report--which would prohibit the use of abortions at military medical facilities--will only go into affect if the Defense authorization report contains similar language. I have made it clear that the Defense authorization conference must not alter this important language. As a member of the National Security Committee, however, I am also aware of the fact that our party has committed to revitalizing our defense, and this legislation is the key element of fulfilling that promise. Defense spending has been cut by nearly 30 percent over the past 5 years. Spending on procurement of military hardware has fallen by almost 75 percent over that same period of time. President Clinton's defense budget would slash another $7 billion out of our national security. This bill freezes spending at last year's level, giving our Armed Forces much needed resources in these uncertain times. I understand the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues. But there is no reason to expect that sending the bill back to conference would result in strengthening the antiabortion language already in the bill. There is, however, a very good chance that doing so could deny our young men and women in uniform funds which are essential to their safety, their training, and to the equipment which they must have to do their job. This is a difficult vote. But I have decided that I must vote in favor of a strong national defense today, and continue to work to protect our unborn in the days, weeks, and months ahead. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I urge those members who serve on the Department of Defense authorization conference committee--which is meeting this week--to retain language which will defend innocent life and provide for the vital functions of our Nation's defense at home and abroad.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the distinguished chairman of the House Commerce, Justice Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the proposed language contained in the committee report on H.R. 2076 regarding the hiring and placement of INS investigation, detention, and border patrol agents. While I strongly support the subcommittee's goal to increase the number of INS personnel along the southern border of the United States, I am concerned that the language of the Committee Report may result in the further weakening of an already inadequate INS and border patrol presence in the Nation's interior agricultural areas. In my own Fourth Congressional District of Washington, the illegal immigration problem has forced the INS office in Yakima to shut down its telephone service. A local newspaper recently reported that during a raid in the Yakima Valley this spring, the border patrol found that 23 out of 25 migrant workers were illegal immigrants, and 12 of them were using someone else's social security number. In addition, Franklin county jail estimates that in 1994, an average of 50 percent of its inmate population consisted of illegal aliens, many of whom remained in the county jail at taxpayer expense simply because there were not enough border patrol agents to transfer them for deportation. Mr. Chairman, our Nation must not only protect its borders from the influx of illegal immigration, but it must also seek to control document fraud and remove those illegal aliens already here. To do that, we need to maintain a strong INS presence in the interior as well as along the southern border. I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee if interior congressional districts may be assured that Members and INS regional directors will be consulted before final INS hiring and relocating decisions are made?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.