Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's explanation. To me, Mr. Speaker, this sounds precisely as a look into the future, as we move towards what I would consider, I know that some would want, a government-style health care in this country, where conditions are going to be set forth on what kind of care, when that care is, what's the condition of ownership. All of these things apparently are on the horizon, and we are seeing an inkling into the future of how that would be effected. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. If the issue is to go after doctor-owned hospitals that are not doing the ethical thing, then why not go after them instead of writing a bill that covers everything carte blanche including this facility in my district? The gentleman has not answered that. He didn't answer it last night, and he probably won't answer it today. I yield to my friend from Texas, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, history is being made today in the U.S. House of Representatives. Yesterday, Democrat leaders and the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee chose for a record-setting, a record-setting 50th time to consider legislation under a completely closed process that allows no amendments, no alternatives, no substitute proposals, and permits not a single Member of this House the opportunity to change or improve the underlying bill. Last January, the new Democrat majority promised the American people a new era of openness in the U.S. House, but they have delivered the most restrictive and unfair process in the history of the House. It is only March in the first part of the second session of this Congress, but the Democrats have already exceeded the 49 closed rules of the entire 109th Congress. Mr. Speaker, that is a historic low. We were promised change, and we have gotten it. Only it has been change, Mr. Speaker, for the worse. Mr. Speaker, time after time, Democrat leaders have shut down any and all opportunity for Members of the House to amend, alter or debate legislation. This is a sad and disrespectful way to approach the business of the American people and the people's House. It doesn't have to be this way, and it certainly isn't what the Democrat leaders promised a little more than a year ago. That promise has been tossed out the window, along with any pretense to seek out bipartisan compromise in passing legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has passed a bipartisan bill on mental health parity, and, Mr. Speaker, it passed unanimously. Yet House Democrat leaders refuse to even allow the bipartisan Senate compromise to be voted on in the House. An amendment to allow a House vote on the Senate compromise was blocked by the Democrat Rules Committee, just as it blocked every other amendment offered by Members of this House, and that only happened last night. Yet the reach of this bill goes far beyond mental health parity. The $1.3 billion cost it would impose on businesses providing health care to employees is an issue that, frankly, is not addressed, or any loss of care that may result from new government mandates that are contained in the bill is also not addressed. The reach of this bill stretches deep into the ability of doctors to provide care to patients across this country through a $3 billion cut in health care to Americans served by doctor-owned hospitals. This is the second time in 7 months that the House will vote on legislation that seeks to ban doctor-owned hospitals by cutting funding from Medicare and Medicaid to these facilities, and, as such, Mr. Speaker, it imposes a very real and serious threat to some Americans' ability to access health care. One of the hospitals threatened by this proposal is Wenatchee Valley Medical Center in my district in central Washington. The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, Mr. Speaker, was founded in 1940 by three physicians. In the last 68 years it has grown, and now employs 1,500 people. It serves a population of 250,000 people in an area the size of the State of Maryland and it treats 150,000 patients a year. It has been designated by the State of Washington as a ``critical need hospital'' that is serving a rural underserved area. Today, Mr. Speaker, it is 100 percent owned by 150 doctors. Apparently, that is a crime, because this bill would outlaw this facility as it has existed for 68 years, because this bill would prohibit any hospital from being more than 40 percent owned by doctors if they are to continue receiving Medicare patients for the care that they provide to their seniors. Mr. Speaker, the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center has been treating and caring for patients longer than there has been even 50 States in our Union, and yet this bill could end that care. When I discussed this threat to Wenatchee with the proposal sponsors last night in the Rules Committee, they said the simple answer was to sell the 60 percent stake in a government-ordered fire sale so it meets the 40 percent limit on doctor ownership. Not only is a fair price, Mr. Speaker, unlikely to be paid when selling under a threat of government action, but it is unfair and disruptive to any institution with a long record of excellent care. Mr. Speaker, what is so nefarious about 100 percent doctor ownership, or 75 percent, or 50 percent, or even, Mr. Speaker, 41 percent? What is magically solved with the ownership of 40 percent? The answer is nothing, nothing when it comes to Wenatchee. The irony is not lost on me that this bill only bans doctor-owned hospitals in an effort to supposedly target bad behavior. Consider this, Mr. Speaker: If a corporation engages in the exact, in the exact same practices that this bill tries to stop doctor-owned hospitals from doing, the corporation would pay no penalty. It wouldn't even be touched. So apparently patients are safer if corporations are in charge, but patients are in danger and taxpayers are being ripped off if doctors prosper from owning a hospital and are providing excellent care. What is really happening in this bill is a push to move our country ever closer to a Canadian-style government-run health care system, as under this bill such a Canadian-style system will replace good, high quality care from down-home doctors with the extensive medical expertise of Congress. The Federal Government will decide where Americans will get care and what hospitals will be banned or shutdown. The Federal Government will also decide when Americans are allowed to get care, if they are allowed to get care at all. If the Federal Government can ban doctors from owning a hospital, then the health care access of every American, Mr. Speaker, in my view, is at risk. I fundamentally disagree with those who believe that an all-knowing Congress and thousands of Federal bureaucrats can deliver Americans the best health care possible. Keep in mind, this ban on doctor-owned hospitals, quote-unquote, saves $3 billion. Ironically, Mr. Speaker, this is accomplished by denying or reducing access to care for seniors and poor Americans on Medicaid and Medicare. Instead of growing the size and power of the Federal Government by taking decisions away from local doctors and removing freedoms from individual Americans, we should be allowing American patients to make more choices and free doctors to focus on their profession of healing. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, the accusations of negligent care and fiscal rip-offs that are leveled at doctor-owned hospitals simply don't apply to this facility. Wenatchee is not guilty of the sins of others simply because it is a doctor-owned hospital since 1940. It should not be targeted or threatened for the real or anecdotal failures of recently created doctor-owned hospitals. The language in this bill is simply not ready for passage as it is currently written. It is too broad and imprecise. It would punish honest, well-performing hospitals and doctors and their patients for the actions of others. If there is bad behavior, Mr. Speaker, to be banned, then target that behavior. Don't impose an overreaching ban that harms innocent patients and doctors. My constituents are not alone in facing this threat. Both Mr. Hinojosa of Texas and Mr. Kagen of Wisconsin have similar concerns about health care institutions in their districts. Efforts to improve this legislation so that it doesn't threaten and harm our home-grown hospitals have not been met with openness. In fact, we have been denied on a bipartisan basis. Last night in the Rules Committee I made three separate attempts to try to offer an amendment to protect innocent hospitals. However, Democrats on the Rules Committee chose to deny each and every attempt to preserve the stricture of my hospital and the hospitals of Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Kagen. Mr. Speaker, there are legitimate bipartisan concerns about the toll this language would have on local hospitals that have done no harm and who provide important health care access to thousands of Americans. This bill needs to be corrected, not forced through the House with zero opportunity for improvement or amendment. This record-setting closed rule denies any chance for help to be provided to Wenatchee Valley Medical Center or to patients in hospitals in Texas and Wisconsin. The rule deserves to be defeated and this House allowed to vote on correcting this flawed bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) 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, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard my friend from Florida say that this is a dilatory tactic, and the idea was to, what was it, to deny a vote on this bill? For goodness sakes. Last night there were several attempts, several attempts to try to improve this bill in a way that would make it more palatable to more people in this House, and they were turned down every time by the majority, Democrat majority, in the Rules Committee. And so for my friend from Florida to stand up and say that that is an attempt to kill this bill, when last night she participated in an exercise to do exactly that, is just beyond me.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the resolution. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and give us an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan, permanent solution that closes this terrorist loophole in the FISA Act. 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, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 taught us many lessons. One of the lessons we learned that day was that our Nation must remain aggressive in our fight against international terrorism. We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish to harm our fellow Americans. Now is not the time to tie the hands of our intelligence community. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into the 21st century is a critical national security priority. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with that assessment. On January 28, 2008, less than 3 weeks ago, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi in support of the Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation. The letter states, and I quote, ``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.'' Mr. Speaker, that was a letter sent to Speaker Pelosi less than 2 weeks ago by the members of the Democrat Blue Dog Coalition. 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 L. Boswell, ------, Mike Ross, Bud Cramer, Heath Shuler, Allen Boyd, Dan Boren, Jim Matheson, Lincoln Davis, Tim Holden, Dennis Moore, Earl Pomeroy, Melissa L. Bean, John Barrow, Joe Baca, John Tanner, Jim Cooper, Zachary T. Space, Brad Ellsworth, Charlie Melancon, Christopher P. Carney. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that House Democrat leaders chose to bring a 21-day extension bill to the floor instead of the bipartisan measure that passed the Senate by a vote of 68-29. I might add, Mr. Speaker, those Senators had the information that has been alluded to several times on the floor today. To make our country safer, Congress needs to act. The House should vote on the Senate measure, but the Democrat leaders have chosen instead to use delay tactics. The only reason I can see, Mr. Speaker, that we are not voting on the Senate measure is the fear of the leaders on the other side of the aisle that this bipartisan bill will pass. But today, I will attempt to give all Members of the House an opportunity to vote on this bipartisan, long-term modernization of FISA. I call on all my colleagues, including members of the aforementioned Blue Dog Coalition that signed the letter to Speaker Pelosi on January 28, to join with me in defeating the previous question so that we can immediately move to concur in the Senate amendment and send the bill to the President to be signed into law. We need to do that before the current law expires, making our Nation at greater risk. 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. And so the gentleman is prepared to close after I close?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from New York if he has any more speakers.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a Member who for 6 years was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutions of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the former attorney general of the State of California, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), also a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.