Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1740) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of Illabot Creek in Skagit County, Washington, as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as amended.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1740 will designate segments of the Illabot Creek in Skagit, Washington, as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The designated area is located within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, and it totals 14.3 miles in two separate segments. The U.S. Forest Service studied this creek and found that it possesses the requisite characteristics consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, this bill was amended with some provisions that the subcommittee and the full committee thought were very important on these designations, but I urge its passage. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Arizona that I have no further requests for time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge the passage of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2336) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the York River and associated tributaries for study for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as amended.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 2336 authorizes the National Park Service to study 11.25 miles of the York River, in the State of Maine, for the possible inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers program. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 was intended to put a development freeze on rivers to preserve their ``free-flowing'' characteristics. Although no risks to the river necessitating Federal designation were identified, proponents of the study explained that they would benefit from the expertise of the National Park Service and its interaction with the community. As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, this legislation was amended. The subcommittee felt that there should be some conditions even though this is only a study, and those conditions were inserted into this bill. I urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Arizona that I have no more requests for time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4222) to provide for the conveyance of certain land inholdings owned by the United States to the Tucson Unified School District and to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4222, authored by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), directs the Secretary of the Interior to take two approximately 10-acre parcels of Federal land into trust for the Pascua Yaqui tribe in Arizona. The two parcels are completely surrounded by either the tribe's reservation or by fee lands owned by the tribe. Before one of the parcels can be taken into trust, however, the Tucson Unified School District will need to relinquish its possessory interest in the parcel. The school district no longer needs the land, which it had previously received under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Both parcels would be utilized as part of a golf course as currently under construction. Neither parcel is necessary for the construction of the golf course, but if the tribe does not acquire and use the parcels, they will be orphaned and of relatively no use to either the tribe or to the United States. Finally, as has been the practice of the committee during the last several Congresses, this bill includes language that prohibits any gaming on the two parcels to be taken into trust, and the tribe has no objection to this language. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Arizona that I have no more requests for time on this excellent piece of legislation.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Washington.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. In reclaiming my time, I would be more than happy to respond to my good friend in that regard. Obviously, this is the concern because of that. They say then--and rightfully so--in their letter that was sent out to all Members of Congress: Thus, instead of being limited to oceans and coasts, the National Ocean Policy could extend to the regulation of every farm and ranch in the United States. Now, I think they're right on that. But we do have statutes, by the way, that deal precisely with what my good friend from Washington brought up to me just a moment ago, and that is the Clean Water Act. That's what part of that is all about, is to deal with that. This is an executive order that gives potential authority far, far beyond those acts, and it's done by executive order. Now, there is a process to go through. Sometimes we can agree with that process or disagree, but at least let's go through that process with the Congress making the policy. That's what the issue is here with this executive order. Finally, since my good friend from Washington brought this up, let me make this observation. Our State of Washington has an ocean policy. It was done by statute, and in it, it specifically says in that statute: The marine management plan, meaning the ocean policy, must be developed and implemented in a manner that recognizes and respects existing uses. I think that's good policy. In fact, that's probably why so many Northwest fishing organizations are in support of the Flores amendment, but the policy that is driving this executive order is contrary to that. Let me take a direct quote--a direct quote--out of this policy driving this executive order: The task force is mindful that these recommendations may create a level of uncertainty and anxiety among those who rely on these resources. ``Resources'' meaning the land. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have to ask: Does this not sound suspiciously like, We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it? Does that sound somewhat familiar? So I think the gentleman from Texas is exactly right in that the way that we can exercise our prerogative and our authority is to deny funding. By the way, speaking about funding, we had the Council on Economic Quality in front of our committee, and we asked particularly, Where is all this funding coming from? We've asked by letter. They have yet to respond. So they're taking parts of it here and there, and it's not showing up on anybody's budget at all.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), a member of the Natural Resources Committee. We have had several hearings on this executive order and on the potential impacts that this executive order would have far, far beyond ocean policy. The Natural Resources Committee also, obviously, has concerns about our environment. That's probably one of the reasons the committee was created many, many Congresses ago. But this step by this administration with this executive order goes far, far beyond what anybody would envision, and it is being done without going through the normal process. In his remarks, the gentleman from Texas stated several organizations that are opposed to this executive order, and amongst those is the Farm Bureau. Now, when one thinks about the Farm Bureau, they are an organization that represents our diverse agriculture industry across the country, but you don't associate the Farm Bureau policies with the oceans or lakes. You associate them with crops that are grown on dry land or on irrigated land or whatever the case may be. With that being the case, why should the Farm Bureau be concerned about a policy dealing with ocean planning? The reason is, obviously, in the fine print because, in the fine print of the executive order, it says that this ocean policy should look at a number of things, including ``by promoting and implementing sustainable practices on land.'' So, implementing practices on land, are those positive or negative?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. So what this attempts to do, by the gentleman from Texas with his amendment, is simply to say, okay, we're going to exercise our authority, and our authority is not to give any agency that contributes to this policy any funds. It's nothing more than that. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?