Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, which I must note, Mr. Speaker, is more time than the entire House Intelligence Committee will be permitted to debate the legislative proposal covered by this rule. The Democrat Rules Committee is allowing just 20 minutes for the members of the Select Committee on Intelligence to debate this Democrat FISA proposal. What is at stake is the safety and security of our Nation to protect us against foreign terrorists threats by modernizing the 1970s electronic surveillance law. The issue before the House is no less than our intelligence community's ability to protect American citizens by monitoring foreign terrorists communicating in foreign places. But the respective members of the Intelligence Committee are to be given only 20 minutes to debate this issue. It appears that Democrat leaders are not content with their record of the most closed rules in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives in shutting down every Member from being permitted to offer amendments on the House floor. So now they are going so far as to restrict the time the House is even permitted to debate bills that they are trying to ram through this body. Mr. Speaker, since the new Democrat majority took control of the House Rules Committee last January a year ago, they have approved rules that allow other committees far more time to debate matters of far less importance than FISA. For example, H. Res. 214 provided a rule allowing the Transportation Committee 1 hour of floor debate on legislation to ``authorize appropriations for sewer overflow control grants.'' H. Res. 269 gave the Financial Services Committee 1 hour to debate housing assistance for Native Hawaiians. H. Res. 327 gave an hour to the Science and Technology Committee to discuss scholarships for math and science teachers. H. Res. 331 gave the Resources Committee 1 hour of time, not just 20 minutes, but 1 hour of time to debate restoring the ``prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free roaming horses and burros.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle care sincerely about the security of our country and our fellow citizens. But I fail to understand how it could be justified to allow more House floor time to debate overflowing sewers and the killing of wild burros than the members of the Intelligence Committee are allowed today to discuss the urgent needs of FISA. The answer is that Democrat leaders are working overtime to block the House from voting on a bipartisan compromise bill that has passed the Senate by a vote of 68-29. The bill passed the Senate over a month ago, and on February 12, the Democrat leaders refused to allow the House to even vote on that measure. Twenty-one Blue Dog Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi at the end of January declaring their support for the Senate FISA bill. But there still hasn't been a vote. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record that letter. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, January 28, 2008. Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being considered by the Senate. 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. It is our belief that such legislation should include the following provisions: Require individualized warrants for surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad; Clarify that no court order is required to conduct surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are routed through the United States; Provide enhanced oversight by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; Compel compliance by private sector partners; Review by FISA Court of minimization procedures; Targeted immunity for carriers that participated in anti- terrorism surveillance programs. The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe and save American lives here in our country. It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical surveillance issues. 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 could place our national security at undue risk. Sincerely, Leonard Boswell, Marion Berry, Mike Ross, Bud Cramer, Heath Shuler, Allen Boyd, Dan Boren, Jim Matheson, Lincoln Davis, Tim Holden, Dennis Moore, Christopher Carney, Earl Pomeroy, Melissa Bean, Joe Baca, John Tanner, Jim Cooper, Brad Ellsworth, Charlie Melancon, Zack Space. When the Rules Committee met to discuss this bill on Wednesday, several of my Democratic colleagues argued that the House shouldn't have to give in to a my-way-or-the-highway or take-it-or-leave-it approach when it comes to the bipartisan Senate bill. I agree with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. No Member of this House should ever vote for legislation that they can't support. Members have the right to vote their conscience. But, Mr. Speaker, simply allowing the House to vote on a bipartisan FISA bill doesn't force any Members to vote against his or her will. It just gives them an opportunity to vote on a bill that has passed the other body overwhelmingly. It is the Democrat leaders and a liberal minority amongst that party who are telling the rest of the House that it's their way or no way. For days and weeks, they've refused the call of the 21 Blue Dog Democrats for the House to act in the name of our Nation's security. Democrat leaders are standing in the way of letting the House vote and work its will because they fear a majority of this body will actually approve the Senate bill. Mr. Speaker, today, every Member of the House is going to have a chance to vote and to allow the bipartisan Senate language to pass this House. Let me be very clear what I intend to do when the previous question is moved, because this will not be the ordinary motion. I will amend just one clause of the rule, that is, section 2, so that the section will then read, and I quote: Upon rejection of the motion to concur specified in section 1, a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3773 is hereby adopted. What does that mean? What this means is that by voting ``no'' on the previous question, the rule will be amended in such a way that continues to allow the House to debate and vote on the proposal that's offered by the Democrats today. But if the House Democrat proposal fails, then the bipartisan Senate FISA bill is then agreed to by the House. So we will have the vote on the Democrats' partisan FISA bill presented to us today, but if the vote on the Democrat FISA bill fails, then the games stop right there and the Senate bill goes to the President for his signature. There's no more stalling, Mr. Speaker, no more posturing. It's time for the House to stand up and vote and get on with the business of protecting America. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much 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 am disappointed that that was the response, because let me go back and again review this, at least chronologically on the issue that we debated last night and my involvement with that and my involvement with the professional attorneys that wrote their opinion on the impact this would have on the ethics process. I was sent a letter by the ranking member, Mr. Smith of Texas, the first part of November. It was addressed to me. It was also addressed to the committee. We had our regularly scheduled meetings at that time, and I asked the chairwoman that I think that we should respond to this in a way, and in further fact, would you be interested, and she said no. I said okay, I respect that. But the attorneys went about their business, as was asked, and rendered their thoughts on what this would do to the whole committee process. Now, this was in November, Mr. Speaker. That plan of this outside group was not made public until the end of December. There was time, I am not sure of the exact time frame, when those attorneys went down and consulted with the task force. There is a bipartisan group there, at least from a staff standpoint, I am not sure, because I wasn't a member of that task force, but I was advised that they went down and shared their concerns. So there was some involvement from our staff attorneys with the task force on the issue and the policy, and I want to emphasize this, Mr. Speaker, on the policy that would confront the House later on. Now, two weeks ago when I was in the Rules Committee, I am a member of the Rules Committee, we had what I thought was a very, very good discussion when Mr. Capuano and Mr. Smith came up and testified on the merits or demerits of this outside bill. There was a lot of angst on the other side, I have to say. The distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee expressed her displeasure at that time, and my other colleagues on the Rules Committee did too. But we had a very, very open discussion. And I expressed at that time, Mr. Speaker, what I thought would be at least a partial remedy for the ethics process. I felt that there needs to be more transparency some way while still keeping and not violating confidentiality. I thought that Mr. Smith's position was a very, very good position the way it was set up, and I felt that should have at least been debated on the floor. That's probably another issue. But as this process moved forward, and the fact that, I believe it was 2 weeks ago the issue was pulled from the floor, the distinguished majority leader said new information has come to us. That information came in Mr. Smith's proposal. He said it deserves looking into. At that time, if my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Wamp and Mr. Hill, Republican and Democrat, both stood up and announced that they too had a bipartisan suggestion that should be looked at. So I thought, well, okay, maybe this will go in a way that I think is very beneficial. I have long felt, and I said at that Rules Committee meeting before, that when you do ethics you need to do it in a bipartisan way. It has been alluded to. My friend, Mr. Hulshof, made this observation earlier on. I am absolutely convinced in this body you cannot, you cannot make ethics legislation unilaterally. It comes back to bite you because of the nature, I guess, of the issue. We painfully learned that, as Mr. Hulshof pointed out in his remarks. I have stated this a number of times upstairs in the Rules Committee when this issue has come up. I thought this task force, frankly, moving forward, would be a way to settle that. But as we know, we had a great deal of problems on our side of the aisle with an outside group. It apparently couldn't come to an agreement on that. As a result it went forward unilaterally. At that time, I felt that the information, the information that our professional attorneys downstairs had come up with the proposal, was worthy to be shared by everybody in this House so that we could make a determination as to what is the best course for the institution. Sometimes I truly believe that we think too much in 2-year cycles, which coincides with our term. I think we ought to think longer term. I really think that the rules change that we made last night was the wrong rules change, but that will be judged, I suppose in the future. I came to the conclusion, knowing that this memo was there, and so I went, had a meeting with the distinguished chairwoman and, again, consulted with her. She, of course, disagreed with my position, and I said that I was going to do so, and I did. Now, before I released that, I might say, I asked my staff to contact the chairwoman's staff to let her know that I was going to go forward with this, which, of course, I did. I was very surprised when I came to the floor and saw this letter that was sent out. Thus I felt that I needed to rise today on a point of personal privilege to explain my position. I suppose, like all positions that we have, and positions that we take in this body, there is always more than what is on the surface. I felt that needed to be explained as fully as I possibly could. But I have to say if I am guilty of anything, that my motivation was to allow the Members of this body to get as much information as possible. I have had Members from the other side of the aisle last night and this morning who came up to me and said I wonder why this information didn't want to be shared. Well, I don't know that. I don't have the answer to that. But I felt absolutely within my rights, without violating the rules of the committee or the House, to share that with all of my colleagues. I did so, and I did so in a way that I think is in the best tradition of this House for as much openness as we can possibly have. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time. I thank the House for its indulgence, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman very much for his very kind remarks. I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairwoman of the Ethics Committee, if she would acknowledge that I did consult with her on this matter.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would like to yield to my friend from the neighboring State of Idaho, Mr. Simpson.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman very much for his sentiments. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the former attorney general.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. LaHood from Illinois, another one of my classmates.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is my time, and I will decide.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will not yield at this point.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I have other Members that wish to speak, and I will call on them at this point.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield now to the minority Republican whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), one of my classmates.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, no one in this House takes more seriously than I do the rules governing confidentiality of matters before the House Ethics Committee. Each of us privileged to serve on the committee signs an oath pledging not to disclose information related to our work in the committee except as authorized under our committee rules. During nearly 8 years of service on the Ethics Committee, including 2 years as the chairman, I have never found it necessary to disclose committee documents or any other privileged information. Mr. Speaker, that changed yesterday when it became clear that the Democrat leadership would, indeed, force Members to vote on a proposed independent ethics entity. You see, I knew, and Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones knew, something that the other Members of this House did not know. Several months ago, we had been advised by the nonpartisan, professional attorneys at the Ethics Committee that they believed the proposed independent ethics entity would infringe upon Members' due process protections under the rules of the House and that it would seriously hamper the Ethics Committee's ability to carry out its important responsibilities. When the ranking member of the bipartisan task force, Mr. Smith of Texas, sent a letter asking for our committee's official comments on Representative Capuano's proposal, I took his request to Chairwoman Tubbs Jones and asked her to prepare a formal response with me to the ranking member of that task force. I did so because I felt strongly that the proposed entity would so greatly impact the work of the Ethics Committee that it would be irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, irresponsible not to share with task force members our official views of this plan. Last night, in a Dear Colleague letter to every Member of this House, that was printed in the Congressional Record, it was printed in Roll Call, it was printed in other publications, Representative Tubbs Jones has attempted to rewrite the history on this issue. For reasons that I have trouble fathoming, she now claims, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, ``Both Representative Hastings and I agreed that the Ethics Committee could not and should not give advice to the committee charged by House leadership with reviewing the ethics process itself.'' Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. I could not possibly have stated more clearly to Mrs. Tubbs Jones my desire to respond fully and jointly to Ranking Member Smith's request for guidance on how the task force proposal would affect our committee. Now I recognize the difficulty that she must have explaining to her colleagues why she did not believe that they should be made aware of the concerns expressed by our nonpartisan attorneys on the committee. But, Mr. Speaker, those attorneys don't work for her and they don't work for me. They work for every Member of this House. So, I don't understand, I didn't understand then and I don't understand now, why my distinguished colleague, the gentlelady from Ohio, sought to keep that information from every Member of the House, but she did. And I do not stand by and permit her to call into question my integrity on setting that record straight, as I did so with a letter I sent out to every Member, along with the e-mail of the attorneys on their advice on that issue. Now, Mr. Speaker, Members should be advised that this is not the first time that I have had to set the record straight following ill- considered public comments by Representative Tubbs Jones. Last June, she issued a press release declaring that the Ethics Committee would empanel an investigative subcommittee into the matter of Representative William Jefferson. Under the committee's rules, Representative Tubbs Jones had no authority to issue such a statement and lacked the authority to establish such a subcommittee. She not only knew that such an action would require a bipartisan vote of the committee, but she also knew that the committee had never voted on the matter. And she knew, Mr. Speaker, that I had pressed her for months to reestablish the Jefferson subcommittee which had lapsed at the end of the last Congress before it completed its work. And I said so, Mr. Speaker, when she issued that because she did not consult with me and ask me to give permission for her to release that statement. She simply did not do so. So, once again, I cannot fathom her reason for making such an inaccurate and irresponsible statement as I mentioned earlier. Mr. Speaker, I make no apology to this House for insisting that Members benefit from the advice and counsel of the skilled attorneys at the Ethics Committee before voting on a proposed independent entity. After all, Mr. Speaker, this affects them. I'm a Member, also, of the Rules Committee. And at the Rules Committee 2 weeks ago, when we had testimony on this issue, I expressed my concern then as to what would come of this outside entity. So, Mr. Speaker, I resent the claim by Representative Tubbs Jones that I have violated the rules of the House and the Ethics Committee in this manner. As she no doubt intended, Representative Tubbs Jones' false allegations have now made their way into the news, bringing further discredit to the House. But most disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is her public threat to use her position as chairman of the House Ethics Committee to bring sanctions against me. Such a threat can only be motivated by a desire to intimidate and embarrass, while distracting attention from her decision to keep every Member of this House from receiving information that I think every Member deserved to have before we voted on that proposal last night. Mr. Speaker, I think her action in calling into question and impugning my reputation, and what she did last night, is wrong, and I think she failed in her effort of trying to do that. So I rise today, point of personal privilege, to point out the history of this, and my position, and the reason why I felt that every Member of this House had to have this important information, notwithstanding the fact that we had a very short time frame to even debate the matter at hand. So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I appreciate your indulgence. And I would like to yield time to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule IX, I rise to a question of personal privilege.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank my friend from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, while I am constrained by confidentiality rules in speaking about the current work and past actions of the Ethics Committee, I want to clearly state today that I believe the current rules and structure of the ethics process should and need to be improved. The procedures of the Ethics Committee are not perfect, and I firmly believe this House should make modifications to those procedures to better protect the integrity of the House and the faith of the American people. However, Mr. Speaker, this House must act carefully and deliberately in making any improvements, and it must be done in a bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, that is not happening. No consideration of a bipartisan reform proposal is permitted on the floor tonight. The House floor is shut down to any debate. No alternative is allowed to be considered. No amendment may be offered. No respect, Mr. Speaker, is offered to the concerns expressed by both Democrat and Republican Members of this House. Mr. Speaker, in 2005, at the beginning of the 109th Congress, Democrat leaders decried House rule changes that were written only by Republican leaders. Democrats demanded bipartisanship and a fair say in the rules that governs the ethics of House Members. Democrats weren't given any say then, and those one-way changes to the rules were ultimately reversed during the 109th Congress. It is now 3 years later, and the same Democrat leaders have abandoned their calls for bipartisanship and are refusing to work across the aisle to make bipartisan improvements to the ethics process. Mr. Speaker, Republicans were wrong to do it in 2005 and Democrats are wrong doing it today. In fact, since the new Democrat majority took office a little over a year ago, this House has already had to go back twice and correct poorly written rules that Democrats passed without any input from Republicans. In both instances, Mr. Speaker, Democrat- written rules that the House had to go back and fix were ethics rules. The House should learn from the mistakes of the past several years and not doom ourselves to repeat history by failing to insist that ethics changes be done in a bipartisan way. For the ethics process to work, bipartisanship is vital. Without bipartisanship, the process will fail. Bipartisanship is not always easy, but it is absolutely necessary for the legitimacy of the entire ethics process. Without bipartisanship, the process degenerates into politically motivated actions, or witch hunts. This proposal is not a good proposal, and no one, Mr. Speaker, is more disappointed than I. Because Members of the Ethics Committee are asked to do an unwelcomed job. We do it by the rules of the House. And by the rules of the House, we must remain silent, even when subjected to relentless and often inaccurate criticism and attacks on our actions. So, Mr. Speaker, improve the ethics process. Improve the ethics ability to police its Members. Improve our ability to provide timely information to the American people. Improve the bipartisanship that is central to the ability of the ethics process to function. But, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of this institution and for ensuring an ethics process that will function properly, do not act in a partisan way by supporting a proposal written solely by one party. Oppose this proposal and demand bipartisan improvements to the entire ethics process.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 50th closed rule, record-setting 50th closed rule that denies every Member from offering an amendment on the House floor, and to vote ``no'' on the previous question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent solution that closes the terrorist loophole. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of discussion here today on the underlying bill, the subject of which has broad support. The issues are the PAYGO and the issues are the denial, denial of the Democrat leadership in this House to allow a vote on a bill that passed in the other body unanimously. So much for openness that was promised a little over a year ago. Mr. Speaker, I want to focus my closing remarks on another issue, another issue that has not been taken up and needs to be addressed, and that's the FISA issue that we have talked about so many times. It has come to my attention today, and it will be in a publication presumably tomorrow, that the distinguished majority leader said that the electronic surveillance bill, or the FISA bill, will not be taken up this week. We are becoming unprotected in this country because we don't have all the capabilities that we need in our intelligence community. With that, Mr. Speaker, in this rule, Democrat leaders have blocked the House from voting on a bipartisan compromise on mental health parity, as I had mentioned. I want to talk now about modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act into the 21st century. The Senate has passed legislation that will bring this 1970s Jimmy Carter-era law up to date to reflect today's age of disposable cell phones and the Internet. Yet for weeks now, House Democrat leaders have refused to allow Representatives to vote on this Senate bill. They've done this despite the public support given the bipartisan Senate compromise by 21 members of the Democrat Blue Dog Coalition. House Democrat leaders are tying the hands of our intelligence professionals to make them jump through unnecessary red tape and paperwork to protect our country. If foreign persons in foreign places are conspiring and plotting to harm Americans and our country, then our intelligence personnel should be listening to them. They shouldn't have to waste precious time and energy on bureaucratic hurdles. We can protect and are protecting the constitutional rights of Americans, but we also must protect their lives by recognizing the terrorist threat to our country and modernizing FISA. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in defeating the previous question so that we can immediately move to vote on the bipartisan Senate FISA bill. 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 reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman answered me yes. Now go ahead with your no. Please explain your no. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I asked if the gentleman would work with me, and apparently the gentleman is saying that he won't work with me, even though this apparently is a very, very small universe, a universe of hospitals that deserve, I think, to have some sort of special consideration because if you have, for example, a government-mandated fire sale, what is the value of the enterprise that you're trying to sell? Yet that is precisely the language that you have in place. So I'm asking you again. Since there are very few of these facilities, in three different States, would you work with us to exempt them totally from the ban that's imposed by this bill?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, there are several parts to this bill. And obviously by the remarks that I made previously, I am worried about what we call the pay-for part of that because it would have a detrimental effect, as I mentioned, on doctor-owned facilities, particularly in my district, but also in other parts of the country. Since this issue came up some 7 months ago, we discovered that there are very few doctor-owned facilities that are unique in the sense of what I was talking about today, and I think my colleagues from Wisconsin and Texas talked about last night in the Rules Committee, and so I want to ask my friend from New Jersey who is the sponsor of this legislation, and I will be happy to yield to him. He talked about the issue of overutilization. Now, I simply have to bring this up because I doubt that the 150,000 patients of the Wenatchee Valley Clinic would say that they are overutilizing that clinic. I think they go there because they want to have their health needs taken care of. So I don't think that is applicable to that facility, and I mentioned that in my previous remarks. I want to ask my friend from New Jersey a question. As I mentioned, apparently there are just a few hospitals that fall in the category that I was describing. But there are bipartisan concerns about the effects of this bill on good hospitals providing quality care. I made that point. Will you work with me and other Members from both sides of the aisle to protect these hospitals and to exempt them totally from this ban on doctor ownership? I yield to my friend from New Jersey.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).