Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, this rule allows for the consideration of the conference report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. This conference report is largely bipartisan, as it should be, and is an example of what Democrats and Republicans can accomplish when working together. This conference report contains important authorizations for increases in force protection and retains provisions of the overdue Wounded Warrior Assistance Act. By passing these provisions, we will help provide the tools needed to protect our men and women currently deployed in the global war on terror. We will be setting up the improvements needed to ensure excellence in our military and veterans care system. There are also provisions in this conference report that are important to those that I represent in central Washington. This conference report authorizes $29 million for the Yakima Training Center. This funding will be used to increase the size of the Army's training space, allow for urban operation training, and support the digital systems used by today's Stryker forces. This new range is expected to be completed in August of 2009 and will provide critical training for our active duty and Reserve Army soldiers. In addition, I am pleased that this conference report extends the operation of the Ombudsman for the Energy Employees Occupation Illness Compensation Program Act. The Ombudsman's office plays an important role in assisting workers at Hanford and other sites seeking illness compensation that they are due. I might add, Madam Speaker, this issue goes way back to the Second World War when we were involved, obviously, in atomic power. Hanford, which is in my district and a county adjacent to my district, played an important part of that and those workers that worked at those sites in many cases gave the ultimate sacrifice as our men and women overseas did, but in a kind of different setting. This compensation program, I think, is very important for those that worked at the Hanford site and other sites during the Second World War. Madam Speaker, again, I would like to stress that this conference report was achieved in a bipartisan manner, and I hope to see more bipartisan conference reports brought to the floor as Congress wraps up its business in this first session of the 110th Congress. As the first session of the 110th Congress comes to a close, I am disappointed that Democrat leaders are still intent on micromanaging the war on terror by blocking the funding requested for all our troops on the battlefield. At a time when both Democrats and Republicans are seeing recent progress in the war on terror, this approach, frankly, Madam Speaker, strikes me as unnecessary, divisive and dangerous. If a supplemental spending bill is not signed into law soon, some Army civilian employees may get layoff notices before the Christmas holidays, and if this funding continues to be delayed, Department of Defense officials have reported that it could affect as many as 200,000 civilian employees and contractors. Madam Speaker, I am also concerned that Democrat leaders continue to use delaying tactics to block a vote on a final bipartisan bill to fund veterans services. This inaction is causing our veterans to lose critical funding each and every day. As I have done in the past, Madam Speaker, I will later be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question in order to appoint conferees and quickly approve a veterans funding conference report that, again, has strong bipartisan support and which is long overdue. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 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. With that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule as was described by my friend from Florida that allows not a single amendment to be offered on the floor of the House today and in opposition to the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill won't become law, and it shouldn't become law. Its priorities are all wrong. It won't lower gas prices; it is going to increase them. It totally ignores nuclear power as a non-emitting energy source. It totally ignores hydropower as a clean, non-emitting energy source. It raises taxes by unknown billions. And, Mr. Speaker, it gives a tax credit to people for riding their bikes to work. I am sorry, but gas prices and climate change aren't going to be fixed by making people ride their bikes to work. This isn't a plan to make America energy independent and to free us from foreign oil. It is just a dream for the political left in this country. And let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, it raises taxes, it is anti- nuclear and anti-dams, it forces people out of their cars, and gives tax credits for riding their bike to work. Mr. Speaker, I want to address an issue, the Secure Rural Schools issue. And you might ask, why do I want to address that issue, because it has nothing to do with energy. And that is a very good question. It has nothing to do with energy, but it is in this bill. It is another cynical way the Democrats have approached this issue. Time after time this year, Democrat leaders have attached Secure Rural Schools to bills they know will never become law, like this bill, and blocked attempt after attempt to put it in bills that will become law. The way this bill is written, it abandons our rural schools and communities and it moves in the program. Don't take my word for it. Just last Tuesday, Speaker Pelosi told the Oregonian newspaper in Portland, Oregon, during a visit to Portland that ``where we go from here is to see how we can phase this system out.'' Mr. Speaker, I submit the full text of the article for printing in the Record. [From the Oregonian, Nov. 28, 2007] Pelosi Says Health Care Change Can Start Here (By Harry Esteve) Oregon could become a leader in the drive to establish centralized computer health records for everyone who gets medical care, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday in Portland. Pelosi, D-Calif., stressed the importance of records as a way to save billions of dollars in health care costs, reduce medical mistakes and ensure better care in rural communities. ``Electronic records are essential to improving health care,'' Pelosi said. ``This is the future. I see Oregon taking the lead in that future.'' Pelosi made her comments after holding a round-table discussion with a group of medical experts, hospital administrators and elected officials, including U.S. Rep. David Wu, D-Ore., and Gov. Ted Kulongoski. The discussion, held at Oregon Health & Science University's South Waterfront office tower, was closed to the media. Pelosi's visit to Oregon was part of her ``innovation agenda,'' an effort to boost technological progress, such as more broadband access and alternative energy systems, and to increase the number of scientists, mathematicians and engineers coming out of U.S. schools. At the same news conference, Kulongoski announced the state has received a $20 million federal grant to install broadband cable at rural hospitals and clinics throughout the state. The grant, from the Federal Communications Commission, would allow a doctor in a remote part of the state to send a digital MRI image to a specialist at OHSU Hospital, for example. Kulongoski said the grant and Pelosi's initiative are part of a widespread movement toward better communication in the health care industry. He said he saw a recent study that showed savings of $1 billion in Oregon alone if electronic health care records were in place. In Oregon, as with much of the country, recent attention on medical issues has focused on the escalating cost of health care and the rapidly rising number of uninsured or underinsured. After talking to reporters for about five minutes, Pelosi answered two questions. One was about the trade-off between her goal of improved record-keeping and efforts to make health care more affordable to everyone. The other was on an unrelated topic: federal timber payments to Oregon counties. Pelosi said the push for centralized medical records would not take away from efforts to give health coverage to millions of people who lack it. Medical experts say the ability to transfer records with ease is as important as other medical breakthroughs, such as new medicines or therapies, Pelosi said. ``We're not talking about this as some kind of elitist thing for people who already have health care,'' Pelosi said. ``We're talking about it as essential.'' Pelosi all but brushed off the question on timber payments. Oregon's congressional delegation has been pushing to keep federal payments to counties that used to receive millions of dollars from logging on national forests. That program expired, although Congress passed a one-year extension this year. ``Where we go from here is to see how to phase this system out'' over the next few years, Pelosi said Tuesday. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leaders of this House need to stop with these false promises regarding rural schools. Let's get serious. Let's keep the promises that were made, the full promise, not one that dwindles towards nothing. Let's get it done as relates to rural schools in a responsible way before the year ends and before this program expires.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) 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, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I always appreciate the gentleman offering his advice. I reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, it really is time for Congress to act and pass a stand- alone veterans funding bill. For the last several weeks, I have encouraged my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill and appoint conferees. We have heard comments from Democrats that when Republicans were in charge that we did not get our work on the veterans funding bill completed on time. So I would ask my Democrat colleagues, if you don't like the way things were run then, then why are you exactly on the same path? Mr. Speaker, a final veterans funding bill is sitting waiting to be acted on. The Democrat leaders have bent over backwards to prevent Congress from passing the final bill. The stalling is costing our American veterans $18.5 million a day. Since the fiscal year began 46 days ago, our Nations's veterans are out $851 million. The veterans funding bill passed the House this summer with over 400 votes and passed the Senate with over 90 votes, and the President will sign the bill. So let's stop delaying, and let's defeat the previous question so that we cannot just say that we are committed to providing for veterans the funding increase that they need, but we actually get this increase to them. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. So if the gentleman is prepared to close, I will close on my side.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the 42nd, Mr. Speaker, closed rule that we are debating here today. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about process here on this very, very important issue. Everybody on both sides of the aisle has talked about the need to make sure that we have the right intelligence, and yet through this process there are a number of questions, I think very legitimate questions, that were raised; because if this rule is adopted, then we will have no opportunity to even vote on the manager's amendment. It will be self-executing. It seems to me like it is a process by which, because we all know pretty much that rule votes are party votes. So it is like denying anybody an opportunity. If somebody on the other side has some questions about the questions that were raised here, they will be denied the opportunity because you have got to stay with the party and support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I just simply say that is a very, very bad process. Mr. Speaker, we also need to pass the stand-alone veterans funding bill. It has now been over 150 days since the veterans funding bill was approved by the House. The Senate passed a similar bill and appointed its conferees 2 months ago. Sadly, Democrat leadership in the House has refused to name conferees and instead has chosen to put politics and partisanship ahead of ensuring that our veterans' needs are met. Once the Democrat leaders appoint conferees, the House can move forward and pass the stand-alone veterans bill. Mr. Boehner took a positive historic step in that direction; now Speaker Pelosi must follow. Therefore, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Funding Bill and appoint conferees. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee held a second hearing to consider a second rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 3773, the Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective, or the RESTORE Act. As you may recall, a month ago the House considered and approved a closed rule for the RESTORE Act. Not only was it a closed rule, prohibiting any debate on amendments, but it also denied Members the opportunity to cast a separate vote on a manager's amendment and changes to the amendment which became part of the base bill once the rule was adopted. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The result a month ago was that the Democrat majority recognized the RESTORE Act was insufficient and decided to pull the bill from the House floor without a vote. Rather than spending a month working in a bipartisan manner to strengthen the bill, yesterday the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee was at it again, rewriting and denying Republican Members the chance to even offer input or suggestions and prohibiting every single Member of the House from offering amendments and alternatives. The Democrat majority's take-it-or-leave-it strategy on this bill is dangerous and is destined to fail, Mr. Speaker. It will not close our Nation's intelligence gap. In fact, it could widen it. In 1978, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to establish a procedure for electronic surveillance of international communications. As enacted into law, FISA had two principles: first, to protect the civil liberties of Americans by requiring the government to first obtain a court order before collecting electronic intelligence on U.S. citizens in our country; second, the law specified how intelligence officials working to perfect our national security could collect information on foreign persons in foreign places without having to get a warrant. The intent of the original FISA law was to enhance American security, while at the same time protecting American privacy. Recognizing that no responsibility of the Federal Government is more important than providing for the defense and security of the American people, Congress should be doing all it can to ensure that FISA continues to reflect the intent of the original law. In August, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, took an important step forward to close our Nation's intelligence gap. The Protect America Act passed only after repeated attempts by Republicans to give our Nation's intelligence professionals the tools and the authority they needed to protect our homeland. This action was long overdue, and this law marked a significant step forward in improving our national security. The Democrats forced the security tools that we passed in August to expire after 6 months. Now Congress must act again to renew this law by early next year before the Democrat expiration date arrives and our national security once again will be at serious risk. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today does not provide the security we need to protect our Nation from a potential future terrorist attack. It is a retreat, Mr. Speaker, from a law enacted in August, and jeopardizes the safety and security of Americans from foreign terrorist threats. I am concerned that not only were final changes to the bill given to the minority just yesterday afternoon, but it was stated in our hearing that the Democrat chairman of the Judiciary Committee got the revised text just moments before we did. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. Conyers' willingness expressed in his testimony before the Rules Committee to work with Republicans and perhaps even postpone consideration of a rule until the bill could be properly reviewed and Republicans had a chance to offer a substitute or changes to the bill. Sadly, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee overruled Mr. Conyers and expressed her intention to move this bill without any alternatives, amendments, or possible improvements being considered. The action of the Rules Committee in October and again yesterday to completely shut down the legislative process shatters the promises made by Democrat leaders a year ago. The distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee on December 27, 2006, was quoted in the New York Times, Mr. Speaker: ``We are going to give people an honest and contemplative body they can be proud of once more. We are going to have a much more open process.'' House Majority Leader Hoyer, on December 5, 2006, was quoted in Congress Daily PM as saying, Mr. Speaker: ``We intend to have a Rules Committee that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals an ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.'' Mr. Speaker, actions obviously speak louder than words. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into the 21st century is a critical national security priority. It is alarming that the Democrat majority wants to move full speed ahead on a bill that weakens Americans' privacy protections, while at the same time strengthening protections for our enemies in the war on terror. I must therefore urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule so that we can make absolutely certain that we are making our laws more, not less, effective in our constant battle to prevent a future terrorist attack against our Nation. If this rule is adopted, Members will only have the choice to vote for or against a seriously flawed bill that threatens, not strengthens, our national security. The Democrat take-it-or-leave-it strategy shuts down all voices from being heard, and ultimately every American can suffer the consequences if this bill and the rule are adopted. Enacting the Protect Act last August, which was a major accomplishment of this Congress, which has chosen to spend, frankly, more time debating and enacting legislation naming post offices and Federal buildings than real policy, it is ironic that the Democrat majority now wants to pull the rug out from under this successful accomplishment. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman and my namesake from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 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.)