Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we need to stop this unprecedented attempt to rewrite trade laws and jeopardize fair trade for our American farmers. Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in the Nation. One in three Washington jobs is tied to international trade. Since 1991, Colombia has had open, free entry into the U.S. for many of their products, while steep tariffs block our farmers' access into Colombia. This agreement would immediately, immediately, Mr. Speaker, eliminate tariffs for Washington State apples, cherries, pears, wheat, beef, and more. If the issue is the economy, what better way to stimulate our Nation's economy than to level the playing field and wipe out unfair trade barriers for our farmers. Mr. Speaker, Representatives and Senators are elected to vote, so let's do our job and vote on the Colombia agreement. What the House is now considering is an effort to delay, to hide, to slam the door, shut the door on free and fair trade that millions of Americans' jobs depend on. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this Hugo Chavez rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just make this point: There are many times when amendments are filed by Members of this body and they do not come to the Rules Committee and their amendments are made in order, and that was the case, for example, of one of the amendments that was made in order by a Democrat Member last night. Those things do happen. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this is a restrictive rule that prevents Members of this House from offering amendments to try and improve the poorly and loosely written underlying bill. As has been said several times, 19 amendments were blocked by the Rules Committee. This rule does not allow the House to debate amendments to protect American's current ability to enjoy these BLM lands through fishing, riding, hunting, and boating. But even more egregious is that this rule blocks the House from voting on an amendment to protect private property rights of American citizens. As Representative Bishop has pointed out, and he had filed an amendment to the Rules Committee, it was amendment No. 13, that would have simply directed the Secretary of the Interior not to include private property within the National Landscape Conservation System without the written consent of the landowner, and this deals with the issue of in holdings, as Mr. Bishop mentioned. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair amendment. It is an important amendment. It seeks only to protect the private property rights of American citizens. The Rules Committee should not have blocked his amendment from being made in order and let Members vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on that amendment. So I am going to give, Mr. Speaker, Members an opportunity to support or oppose private property rights by asking Members of the House to defeat the previous question on the rule. By defeating the previous question, I will seek to amend the rule to allow Representative Bishop to offer his private property rights amendment No. 13. By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members are voting to respect and protect the private property rights of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair rule making in order, in my view, a bad bill, and a poor way to run the House of Representatives. It is claimed by this legislation's proponents that it is just an attempt to write into Federal law a new BLM, Bureau of Land Management, land management scheme that was invented by then-Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt. It is the weakest of justifications for passing legislation and an abdication of responsibility for the legislative branch, for this Democratic Congress, to argue that we have to pass this bill to authorize what the last Democratic President created by fiat. Yet the harm to the powers and responsibilities of the House and our public lands is far greater. This bill simply doesn't write into law the national landscape conservation system that Secretary Babbitt created, because this bill is written so poorly and loosely that it actually gifts the authority of the Congress over to the political appointees and career department bureaucrats in the Interior Department. Vague words such as ``values'' are left undefined by this bill. It is the job of the Congress to define terms and write bills plainly and clearly. Not doing so gives away the power to these presidential appointees and career bureaucrats. When the elected Congress doesn't do its job, the unelected agencies and departments are free to impose their opinions and philosophy as laws and regulations. With the faults and deficiencies of this bill so obvious, it was no surprise that last night 28 amendments to improve this legislation were filed with the Rules Committee, and with the Democratic track record of shutting down debate in this Congress, it was certainly no surprise when the Democratic Rules Committee blocked 19 of these amendments and denied representatives an ability to come to the floor and have a debate and a vote on their proposals. My dear friend from Florida noted that the rule makes in order two Democratic amendments and six by Republicans, but I must point out that this means that every amendment offered by the Democrats were made in order, but 19 were not allowed to be made in order that were sponsored by Republicans. Many relevant and constructive amendments were shut down by the Democratic Rules Committee. These include amendments to ensure the ability for wind and solar energy production on these public lands, to require that the Federal Government fully fund payments in lieu of taxes to local governments before spending new funds on landscaping, to ensure that there is no net loss of off-highway recreation areas and boating access facilities, to protect existing grazing rights, to ensure that hunting, fishing, recreational shooting and other current uses can continue on BLM lands and to require that the privately owned property of American citizens are not included in the NCLS without the written consent of the owner. When the Rules Committee blocked these amendments, they acted to put the decisions in the hands of the Interior Department. This bill is a threat to the ability of citizens to enjoy and use their public lands. Democrat leaders won't even permit Members of the House to vote on whether Americans will be able to continue to ride, boat, graze livestock, shoot, hunt or fish on the lands that they can use today. This Congress says to Americans that their private property rights are not certain, that these rights and their land is at risk subject to the whims of the Interior Department. That Democratic leaders are shutting down debate on this bill is truly not a surprise, but it is a broken promise. When the new majority took control after the 2006 elections, they promised to run the most open House in history. Unfortunately, they have not kept this promise. In fact, the Democratic majority has set a historic record of the most closed rules in the history of the House, and they have already done that in record time. They have shut down debate on the House floor more than any other majority ever. Why have they done so? It certainly isn't because of the tremendous accomplishments of the 110th Congress. The list of items not done, overdue bills and unfinished business of this House is long and growing longer. For example, House Democrats have refused to pass the bipartisan Senate bill to protect our country by modernizing the 1970-era FISA law to monitor foreign persons in foreign places. Another example is the farm bill that expired last September, and America's farmers have been left waiting for months and wondering when this Congress will act. Another is fixing the Medicare payments to doctors so that they can keep caring for seniors. Another is passing funding for the war on terrorism. The new No Child Left Behind act awaits renewal later this fall. Also the Secure Rural Schools Act desperately needs to be passed to keep the Federal promise made to rural communities whose hospitals and schools are at risk. The State sales tax deduction expired last December for those States that don't have a State income tax like Washington and Florida. With the deadline just 6 days away, the new majority has yet to create a final budget outline for the next fiscal year. The House isn't working on these national priorities, but last week the Rules Committee went so far as to pass a rule to restrict debate and permit only three amendments on legislation to renew the Fire Administration. The end result of this closed process was that all three amendments passed by a voice vote and the bill passed this House by 412-0. Hardly a controversial bill, but under the closed process we are left with that example of how this House is being run. With the House neglecting its work and not acting on these priorities, we have a lot of free time on our hands, to which the new majority leaders respond by shutting down Republicans from being allowed to offer amendments on even the most noncontroversial bills, like last week and what we will take up this week. This is an unfair rule on a poorly written bill that threatens each and every American's ability to recreate, use and enjoy their public lands. It puts citizens' private property rights at a real risk. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, to oppose the bill and insist that the House get to work on the important business this Congress is thus far failing to get done. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and namesake Mr. Hastings from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to my good friend and former member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Bishop of Utah.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would just make the observation: This bill, as I mentioned in my remarks and as the gentlelady from Ohio mentioned in her remarks, has obviously very, very broad bipartisan support. Why not consider it then under an open process? There are probably many Members that have an idea that they could perfect this legislation, but we are being denied, with the exception of three amendments, to try to perfect this bill. I just think it is the wrong way to go in a body that prides itself being open to debate and being very deliberative. We are certainly not getting that opportunity under this noncontroversial bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in 2003, this legislation, the United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act, passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent, and it passed the House that same year as a suspension bill by a voice vote. This year it was approved with bipartisan support and a voice vote out of the House Science Committee. The history of this bill has clearly been one of bipartisanship and broad agreement on the merits for renewing the U.S. Fire Administration activities. Mr. Speaker, it is a prime candidate for consideration as a suspension bill by this House, and in a Tuesday meeting of the Rules Committee, I suggested that if no amendments were filed with the committee, that the House should actually consider it as a suspension bill because of its broad support. The Democrats on the Rules Committee said no to consideration as a suspension, as was done in 2003, which, I might add, was done with their consent in 2003. The Democrat Rules Committee insisted on a structured amendment process requiring Representatives to file their proposed amendments through the Rules Committee for the committee's review. Ultimately three amendments were filed with the committee. This rule would make only those three amendments in order, thereby prohibiting the 432 other Members of the House from coming to the House floor and offering an amendment. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat majority has set an historic record for the most closed rules in the history of the House. In doing so, they shut down debate on the House floor more than any other majority has. Mr. Speaker, it is really a terrible record. As the new Democrat majority took control after the November 2006 elections, they promised the exact opposite. They pledged to run the most open House and to allow for bipartisanship. Mr. Speaker, they have broken that promise. Other than appropriation bills, which are historically considered under open rules, this Congress has had only one, just one open rule, and that was over a year ago, in February of 2007. Mr. Speaker, this bill to renew the activities of the Fire Administration is noncontroversial. If it is not going to be considered under suspension of the rules, then it should be done under an open rule. If this noncontroversial bill is not a candidate for an open rule, then what bill will this Democrat majority be willing to bring to the floor and allow under an open rule? The Democrat majority blocks debates on controversial bills and noncontroversial bills. No legislation appears safe from their drive to shut down and shut out debate in this House. They promised to run the House in an open manner, and they are not. They passed new rules to make conference committees more open. Then they just stopped using conference committees and retreated further behind closed doors to write final bills. Mr. Speaker, as just one example, take the Democrat refusal to conference with the Senate on FISA legislation. The American people were promised that this House would be run differently, that it would be run better, but in fact it has not been. The Democrat majority has exceeded and surpassed the heavy-handed tactics that they condemned in the last Congress. Now they have gone so far as to take a noncontroversial bill that was passed by voice vote and turn it into another opportunity to tighten the vise and block debate on the House floor. This House deserves to be allowed to work in an open and free manner, and it hasn't had that, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Sutton, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds before I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Texas just said that he wanted to reconcile the differences between the House position and the Senate; yet there has never been a motion or an attempt by the House to go to conference on these two bills. If you truly want to have a compromise, why don't you go to conference? That hasn't happened. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Now let me just review where we are on this, just to put this into a time frame. The Protect America Act was first put into place last August, set to expire in February so they could work out the differences. Now, the Senate had their proposal, as I mentioned, and as has been mentioned by our leader, passed by a big margin, 68-29. The House has their version. There's nothing unusual with both Houses in a bicameral legislative body having two versions of the same issue. And the way you generally resolve that is to go to conference and work out the difference. We have not had the opportunity, in this body, to go to conference with the Senate on this bill. Further, we have been denied time and time again to have an opportunity to even vote on the Senate amendments. By defeating the previous question, we will have that opportunity. So I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous question so we can amend the rule to have an opportunity to vote and address the Senate bill that passed overwhelmingly. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, earlier in this debate I put into the Record the January 28 letter from the 21 Blue Dog Democrats to Speaker Pelosi in support of the bipartisan Senate bill. And I'd like to quote from that letter, Mr. Speaker: ``Following the Senate's passage of a FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President before the Protect America Act expires in February.'' Mr. Speaker, the Protect America Act has expired, as has the entire month of February. But House Democrat leaders have not acted, as these 21 Blue Dog Democrats have asked, on our national security needs. I will quote again from the Blue Dog Democrat letter: ``We have it within our ability to replace the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed into law, and we should do so. The consequences of not passing such a measure would place our national security at undue risk.'' I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that for 27 days, our country's national security has been put at undue risk because FISA legislation has not been passed because the Democrat leaders are blocking the House from voting, from even voting on the Senate proposal that passed the Senate by a 68-29 vote. So let me be very clear about what I'm talking about when I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and why that will be an attempt, or will be a means, by which we can address the Senate bill for the first time in this body, because this, what I'm going to do, is not an ordinary motion. By voting ``no,'' Mr. Speaker, on the previous question, I will seek to amend one specific clause of the rule, H. Res. 1041, so that the House will still be permitted to debate the FISA bill that this underlying rule makes in order; but if that bill, and if that proposal does not pass this body, then the House, under the provision that I'm seeking to amend the rule, will agree to the Senate bill; and, therefore, the bill would be sent to the President to become law. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

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. Speaker, how much time do I have?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished Republican leader.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Republican Conference chairman, Mr. Putnam from Florida.

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