Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and namesake, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Sadly, the Democrat leaders today are not taking care of the business of this country. They've failed to get their work done because, in my view, they would rather play political games than do the job that Congress and all of us are elected to do. The new fiscal year, Madam Speaker, began 37 days ago, on October 1. Yet not one of the annual funding bills to fund the Federal Government has been signed into law. You have to go back 20 years to find a record this bad. This rule would provide for the consideration of two separate appropriation bills that have been combined together by the Democrat leaders. The Veterans funding bill and funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Education have been forced together in this conference report. These bills have nothing in common, or I should say the only thing they have in common is the fact that they are appropriation bills. They do have one very, very important difference, the difference being callously exploited by the Democrat leaders. The difference is, Madam Speaker, the Veterans funding bill has the votes to pass this Congress and be signed into law, while the Labor, Health and Education spending bill will be vetoed because it increases spending by $10 billion over the President's request. Democrat leaders are using the veterans to try and force through their plan of higher spending. Veterans benefits and veterans health care should not be held hostage. More than 400 of the 435 House Members and over 90 of 100 Senators voted for the veterans spending bill. Yet, Democrat leaders have blocked passage of this bill to be sent to the President since September. For 2 months they have kept the veterans waiting. Madam Speaker, the Democrat leaders know full well this combined spending bill won't be signed into law, but they have chosen to waste our time by having the Congress vote on it anyway. The American people have had enough of this Congress not completing its work and not being serious about the business of this country. The Democrat leaders, in my view, need to stop posturing, stop the game-playing and get serious about doing its job in Congress. Our veterans, Madam Speaker, have already carried a heavy burden for our country. They shouldn't be used by the new majority to carry the burden of passing this agenda of higher spending. Separate these two bills. Let Congress pass a clean funding bill for our veterans. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule that provides for the consideration of a combined conference report destined to be vetoed and sustained. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, 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. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, last month the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs approved a bill that included a two-word addition to existing law that effectively blocks the scientific study of ancient skeletal remains discovered on Federal land. This change, tucked into what is being called a technical corrections bill, is very far from a minor ``technical correction.'' It is a fundamental shift in existing law and would overturn a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court, which is second only to the Supreme Court. Such an extreme action should not be hidden within a mostly noncontroversial bill. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court expressly allowed the research and scientific study of ancient human remains found in the United States. The Senate bill seeks to quietly erase our Nation's ability to study our past and the planet's human history. The Tri-Cities community in my central Washington district needs no introduction to this issue. They experienced firsthand the court battles that ensued after the 9,300-year-old Kennewick Man remains were discovered on the banks of the Columbia River in 1996. These remains are among the oldest found in North America, and the quality of the remains has the potential to yield researchers greater insight into the early history of man in North America. A full 8 years after the Kennewick Man's discovery, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in 2004, as I have explained, that the remains were to be studied by scientists. Then, during the last Congress, the Senate first sought its two-word addition in ``technical corrections.'' I introduced a bill to challenge and publicize this action. Members of the Senate committee decided to try again last month in this Congress. I am forced once again to respond by reintroducing my bill. My bill very simply and plainly ensures the ability for scientific study of truly ancient remains. If this matter is pushed to the Senate, then let us have a full, open and honest debate about what the Senate Indian Affairs Committee would do to scientific study in our country. The effort to quietly slide through such a dramatic change needs to stop. Those who support it should explain why and give a justification. Mr. Speaker, I hope the introduction of my legislation will help bring balance to what is being done on the other side of the Capitol, and that scientific inquiry is not extinguished through the quiet acts of the United States.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Obviously that's an option. We are going to have debate on this, and this should be an option that I hope that the majority leader looks at.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the majority leader for yielding. Talking about procedure today, I think probably the easiest way to resolve this is we're going to be debating the rule, and of course, if the rule goes down, then that would end the business of the day, and that would be the preferred option from this Member's point of view. In the event that doesn't happen, and we in fact then debate the SCHIP bill that we saw last night in Rules for the first time, I think it was filed at 7:17, but my point is that we could debate that, and we have 50 Members that are missing. There is a potential for you to roll the vote, not have the vote today but, in fact, roll the vote until next week. That way the debate will have been done. As my friend from Texas said, the issue does not expire until November 16. So that is an option, it seems to me, to ensure that everybody would have an option to at least vote on this issue.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank my friend and colleague on the Rules Committee from Dallas for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this is the third time the House has considered legislation to renew the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It is the third time that it is being considered under a closed rule that denies each and every Member of this House an opportunity to offer an amendment to improve it. It's the third time that we Republicans first saw the text the night before it comes up for debate. It is the third time that the Rules Committee has met at all hours of the night on these suddenly appearing bills. Last night, it was almost until midnight. The second time we met, it wasn't until almost 10 p.m. And the first time we met on this bill, it was from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. in the morning. It is the third time the Democrat bill allows thousands of adults to sign up for children's health care. It's the third time it moves those with private insurance into a government-run program. And it's the third time it doesn't focus on caring for thousands of the poorest kids in our country who are eligible for coverage today but who haven't been signed up by the individual States. Last night, from 9 p.m. until nearly midnight, the Democrats claimed this bill was really different, that they had changed it to address the problems. But the nonpartisan analysis by the Congressional Budget Office says that they are flat wrong. Under this bill, we would have more adults on children's health insurance than we do today. SCHIP would actually cost more than the previous bills while covering less kids, and that several million enrollees in the program today would leave their private insurance for tax-funded programs. This bill isn't a true effort to reach a new accord to renew SCHIP. It is a political game being played out at its political worst. Speaker Pelosi, who just spoke very eloquently on the floor, her Web site still has a statement on it, and I quote from that statement, ``Under Democratic leadership, this Congress is changing the way we do business in Washington--restoring accountability and working together to get the job done.'' I wish this promise wasn't being broken every time the SCHIP bill is brought to the floor of the House, but it is a promise that is being broken. I want to go on, since the Speaker spoke so eloquently. In her ``New Direction for America,'' she states, ``Regular meetings between Chairs and ranking members of committees and staff should be held.'' That didn't happen on this bill. That's another promise that was broken. Further, in her ``New Direction for America,'' she states, and I quote, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' That's another promise that was broken. To my Democrat friends, I must say that you can't reach an agreement by only talking to yourselves. You don't work together by ignoring Republicans, hiding the text of the bill from the Republicans until the night before the debate, shutting down any opportunity for amendments to be made in order to improve the legislation on the floor. In 1997, a Republican Congress and a Democrat President actually held discussions on creating SCHIP. They talked together, worked together and reached an agreement to provide health insurance to the poorest kids in our country. That approach was successful, and it created this program. That is the right approach to reach agreement to renew SCHIP and to keep the focus on caring for kids that are most in need. The tactics last night and today by Democrat leaders aren't about bipartisan talks; they are about partisan posturing. To me, it's terribly disappointing. SCHIP should be renewed, and it will be renewed as soon as an honest effort is made on a bipartisan agreement. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation with Republican Leader Boehner, immediately appoint conferees to H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for 2008. Two days ago a number of news publications, including Roll Call, reported that the Democrat leadership intends to play political games and hold off on sending any appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to serve as ``an extension of their successful public relations campaign on the State Children's Health Insurance Program.'' Roll Call is the one that made that observation on October 22, 2007. While the House Democrat leadership plays politics on this issue, however, our Nation's veterans are paying the price. The Senate has already done its work and appointed conferees for this bill. And for every day that House Democrats allow the veterans funding bill to languish without conferees for their only political advantage, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million, money that could be used for veterans housing, veterans health care, and other important veterans support activities. On October 18, American Legion National Commander Marty Conaster, five national vice commanders and all 55 Legion national executive committee members sent Speaker Pelosi a letter pleading with her to put partisanship aside and provide this funding for the troops. Mr. Speaker, I include a copy of the letter for the Congressional Record. The American Legion, Indianapolis, IN, October 18, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi: Today ends the Fall meeting of The American Legion's National Executive Committee, at The American Legion's National Headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana. The National Executive Committee consists of an elected leader from each of The American Legion's 55 Departments (50 States, the District of Columbia and four foreign countries). In accordance with The American Legion's National Constitution and By-laws, the National Executive Committee serves as The American Legion's governing body. The National Commander Marty Conatser briefed The National Executive Committee on an array of issues to include the status of the VA budget for FY 2008. The fiscal activities of the 110th Congress--the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution, the Budget Resolution for FY 2008, and the passage of the Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 were reviewed. However, in trying to grasp why such a bipartisan bill, which passed overwhelmingly in both chambers, still hasn't moved in over a month is rather difficult, especially since the President has already said he would not veto the bill, even though it exceeds his recommendations. Understanding why the appropriations process has come to a complete halt is difficult. What is preventing the appointment of conferees, the Conference Committee, or passage of a Conference Report? We are now in the new fiscal year with no idea when the Mil Con-VA appropriations will be passed. If history repeats itself, this standoff may last well into the second quarter of the fiscal year. This uncertainty is disturbing to not only The American Legion and other veterans' and military service organizations, but to every veteran who is dependent on VA for timely access to quality health care, earned benefits, and other services provided by a grateful nation. Madam Speaker, the newest generation of wartime veterans are reporting to VA medical facilities every day as troops are returning from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some will be determined to be service-connected disabled because of medical conditions incurred or aggravated while on active- duty. Others may very well have invisible scars that need attention as soon as possible. As VA welcomes new patients, the existing patient population cannot be ignored nor should their health care be rationed due to limited available resources. There are veterans dependent on VA as their life- support system. The American Legion represents 2.6 million wartime veterans, but also speaks for the 24 million veterans of the United States Armed Forces and their families. Please continue the appropriations process--name conferees, convene the Conference Committee, and pass the Conference Report. Sincerely, Marty Conatser, National Commander; Thomas L. Burns, Jr. (DE), National Vice Commander; Randall A. Fisher (KY), National Vice Commander; David A. Korth (WI), National Vice Commander; James L. Van Horn (AK), National Executive Committeeman; Ross Rogers (AK), National Executive Committeeman; Peggy G. Dettori (AK), National Vice Commander; Donald Hayden (MN), National Vice Commander; Floyd W. Turner (AL), National Executive Committeeman; Julius Maklary (AZ), National Executive Committeeman; James W. Hackney (CA), National Executive Committeeman. Jeff Luginbuel (CO), National Executive Committeeman; John J. Jackson (DE), National Executive Committeeman; Robert J. Proctor (FL), National Executive Committeeman; Ray Hendrix (GA), National Executive Committeeman; Cleve Rice (ID), National Executive Committeeman; W. Darrell Hansel (IN), National Executive Committeeman; David O. Warnken (KS), National Executive Committeeman; Charles D. Aucoin (LA), National Executive Committeeman; Dr. Gordon B. Browning (MD), National Executive Committeeman; Richard W. Anderson (CT), National Executive Committeeman; Paul H. ___, for Walter W. Norris (DC), National Executive Committeeman; William E. Marshall (France), National Executive Committeeman; Andrew W. Johnson (HI), National Executive Committeeman; Kenneth J. Trumbull (IL), National Executive Committeeman; Michael E. Wanser (IA), National Executive Committeeman; Randall Coffman (KY), National Executive Committeeman; Robert A. Owen (ME), National Executive Committeeman; James F. Army (MA), National Executive Committeeman. John E. Hayes (Mexico), National Executive Committeeman; Virgil V. Persing (MN), National Executive Committeeman; David N. Voyles (MO), National Executive Committeeman; Michael J. Landkamer (NE), National Executive Committeeman; John E. Neylon (NH), National Executive Committeeman; Bruce Jorgensen (NM), National Executive Committeeman; Jerry L. Hedrick (NC), National Executive Committeeman; Carl W. Swisher (OH), National Executive Committeeman; Charles E. Schmidt (OR), National Executive Committeeman; Gerald N. Dennis (MI), National Executive Committeeman; Charles E. Langley (MS), National Executive Committeeman; Bob O. Beals (MT), National Executive Committeeman; Ron Gutzman (NV), National Executive Committeeman; William A. Rakestraw, Jr. (NJ), National Executive Committeeman; Paul Mitras (NY), National Executive Committeeman; Curtis O. Twete (ND), National Executive Committeeman; Bobby J. Longenbaugh (OK), National Executive Committeeman; Alfred Pirolli (PA), National Executive Committeeman. William J. Kelly (Philippines), National Executive Committeeman; Ernest Gerundio (RI), National Executive Committeeman; Paul A. Evenson (SD), National Executive Committeeman; Ronald G. Cherry (TX), National Executive Committeeman; Leslie V. Howe (VT), National Executive Committeeman; William F. Schrier (WA), National Executive Committeeman; Arthur D. Herbison (WI), National Executive Committeeman; Carlos Orria-Medina (PR), National Executive Committeeman; Billy W. Bell (SC), National Executive Committeeman; Jennings B. Loring (TN), National Executive Committeeman; William E. Christoffersen (UT), National Executive Committeeman; Rob R. Gordon, Jr. (VA), National Executive Committeeman; William W. Kile (WV), National Executive Committeeman; ------ ------, for Irvin A. Quick (WY), National Executive Committeeman. Mr. Speaker, on that same day, the commander in chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, General Lisicki, also urged Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat leadership to put partisanship aside for the benefit of our Nation's veterans and troops. These pleas from the American Legion and the VFW fall on the heels of multiple requests from Republican Members of this House to both Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Majority Leader Senator Reid, urging them to end their PR campaign and begin conference work on the Veterans appropriations bill. Unfortunately, it appears as though all of these commonsense requests have fallen on deaf ears and our Nation's veterans are being forced to pay the price for continued Democrat partisanship and lack of leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Congressional Record these two letters so everyone watching today's debate across the country can see the efforts that have been made by the Republican Party to end this impasse on the important issue of providing adequate funding for those who have sacrificed so much on behalf of the country. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, September 17, 2007. Office of the Speaker, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Madam Speaker: We write to urge you in the strongest possible terms to reach a prompt agreement on the conference report on the FY2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act (H.R. 2642). Few issues are more important than adequate funding for our Nation's veterans. The leadership in the House cannot allow this critically important funding to fall victim to the usual partisan wrangling which occurs all too often in Washington. Veterans should not be used as tools for political bargaining and gamesmanship. Both the House and Senate passed the FY08 MilCon-Veterans appropriations with overwhelming majorities because our commitment to veterans rises above partisan squabbling. Tragedies such as the recent revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center must never be repeated. The findings of insufficient care at Walter Reed and other facilities should be seen by Congress as a mandate to finish the work and live up to the promises we have made to our veterans. After decades of flat funding, total VA budget rose from $48 billion in FY 2001 to approximately $70 billion in FY 2006, a 46 percent increase. This year, the House voted to increase funding by $6 billion over FY07, one of the largest in the 77 year history of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Both the Senate and House versions received overwhelming majority support passing by a vote of 409-2 in the House and 92-1 in the Senate. Earlier in the year, the new Majority agreed they would continue the trend of significant increases in veterans funding begun by the Republican Congress. We ask you to honor that agreement and see that the commitment we made to our veterans is honored. We must never forget the sacrifice of our veterans. As members of Congress, we have a solemn obligation to fulfill our promises to them. We ask for you to look past the heightened partisanship of our times and unite us on this issue by making it a first priority to quickly bring a stand alone Veterans appropriations bill through conference so the Congress may present the President with a bill by October 1, 2007. We stand ready to assist you in reaching this goal. Sincerely, Stevan Pearce; Steve Buyer; Don Young; Greg Walden; Marilyn N. Musgrave; Ron Lewis; Jim Saxton; ------; Thomas Price; Tim Walberg; Mary Fallin; John Kline; Ginny Brown-Waite; David Obey; Tom Tancredo; John L. Mica; Mark Souder; Louie Gohmert; Rick Renzi; Mario Diaz-Balart; Jean Schmidt; Gus M. Bilirakis; Adrian Smith; Pete Sessions; Paul Ryan; Dana Rohrabacher; Spencer Bachus; K. Michael Conaway; Tom Feeney; J. Randy Forbes; Jon C. Porter; John Shimkus; Jim Gerlach; Mike Ferguson; Mary Bono; Dean Heller; Jeff Miller; Sue Myrick; Geoff Davis; Thelma Drake; Steve King; Jeb Hensarling; Barbara Cubin; Scott Garrett.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate my friend from Hawaii's clarification on this, and I just want to point out a couple of things in my opening remarks. I emphasized that this is a process which I think acknowledges the fact that there is a history that goes back to when Hawaii was a kingdom, and so I acknowledge that point. But I simply raise those issues because those issues I think are important when we talk about the United States as a whole, as a government under laws and everybody being treated equal, and these are questions that I think need to be addressed. I appreciate very, very much my friend's clarification on this. The point that this is a process and the point that there is some lineage going back from a State to a territory to a kingdom probably has some viability to it. But there are always unintended laws when we write national laws that appeal to one State or one set of people. That is what we have to be cautious about. That is why I simply raise these concerns. The issue is before us. We have a rule and we have made in order an amendment that deals with the 14th amendment. I think that is important to be discussed, and I doubt if this issue will be completely decided here today. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, offered in good faith by my friend and colleague from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), would create a process, and I want to emphasize ``process,'' because that is what this is, for establishing and recognizing a Native Hawaiian government entity that would be empowered to act on behalf of its members with the State and Federal Government. However, Mr. Speaker, as the Wall Street Journal noted in 2005, the practical effect of granting this status to self-identified Native Hawaiians would be to allow this new class of American citizens to declare, and I quote again from the Wall Street Journal, ``complete legal and territorial independence from the United States and the establishment of a Hawaiian nation-state.'' Mr. Speaker, before this statement is dismissed out of hand as a completely unbelievable statement dreamed up by the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, I should mention that they were not the ones that were making this claim. They were merely reporting on a statement made by the State Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which first acknowledged this fact. In addition, a recent statement made by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission raised concerns that this legislation, and, again, I quote from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, ``would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide American people into discrete subgroups according to various degrees of privilege.'' Despite the best efforts of this legislation's advocates to compare Native Americans with Native American tribes who govern reservations and often live on them, this legislation would make it possible for our next-door neighbors in Hawaii to suddenly coexist under different legal regimes, a clear violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution's equal protection clause. Mr. Speaker, because this legislation would grant broad governmental powers to a racially defined group, to include all living descendants. The new Native Hawaiians created by this bill would need no geographic, political or cultural connection to Hawaii, much less a physical connection to a distinct Native Hawaiian community. As the Federal courts have recently explained, this is problematic. Again, I quote the Federal courts: ``The history of the indigenous Hawaiians is fundamentally different from that of indigenous groups in federally recognized Indian tribes in the continental United States.'' Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation raises significant constitutional concerns, which have been raised on other bills this year, namely, H.R. 8345, the Hawaiian Ownership Act of 2007, which the House considered in March of this year. The Hawaiian Township Act initially failed under suspension of the rules because 162 Members of the House recognized, and in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Rice v. Cayetano, that the current configuration of Justices would likely strike down the Federal benefits flowing to Native Americans as an unconstitutional racial set-aside, if given the chance. Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are legitimate constitutional concerns that must be addressed in the underlying Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the rule makes in order an amendment to be offered by Mr. Flake of Arizona that would attempt to address the constitutional concerns and ensure the underlying legislation complies with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and namesake from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 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 urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question on the 39th closed rule the House is considering this year, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks, my colleagues on the Rules Committee and I have highlighted loopholes in the House rules related to earmark transparency. While this is an important issue that still must be addressed, there is still a more pressing issue that the House must act on immediately. Mr. Speaker, it has now been 130 days, 130 days, since the veterans funding bill was approved by the House. The Senate passed a similar bill. Mr. Speaker, contrary to what was said in the debate in the last bill, the Senate has appointed their conferees over 6 weeks ago. Sadly, the Democrat leadership in the House has refused to move forward on this bill and name conferees and instead has chosen to put partisanship and politics ahead of ensuring our veterans' needs are met. Every day the Democrats choose not to act to move this bill forward, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Last week, Republican Leader Boehner took a positive step toward naming House Republican conferees. Now, Speaker Pelosi must follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law. I might add, Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills that enjoys strong bipartisan support. It is troubling to me that Democrat leadership chose to consider a simple resolution today supporting and encouraging greater support for Veterans Day each year, but thus far, has refused to demonstrate meaningful support for our Nation's veterans by working on this final funding bill. Our veterans, and all Americans, want us to put partisanship and politics aside and work together to do what is in the best interests for our Nation's veterans. Mr. Speaker, I see no better time than right now. 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. The amendment to the rule I am offering would allow the Speaker to declare a recess for the purpose of consulting with the minority leader prior to the appointment of conferees. Further, it would provide that the motion to instruct conferees otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule within 2 additional legislative days after adoption of this resolution. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we can act on this as quickly as we possibly can. By defeating the previous question, the House will send a strong message to our veterans that they have our commitment to write a final bill providing them the funding and increase they need, deserve and were promised. 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 rise in opposition to this closed rule and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. Mr. Speaker, this rule is the 39th closed rule the House will be considering this year. The Democrats have not just broken their promise to the American people to cooperate in an open and honest manner, they are actually doing it in a record-setting manner. In fact, this Democrat-controlled Congress has considered more than twice as many closed rules, twice as many, Mr. Speaker, as the previous Republican-controlled Congress did at the same point in the session. So they didn't just break their promise, Mr. Speaker, they have shattered it. Most troubling of all is that this rule would prevent Representatives from offering amendments to adjust and alter the bill out of concerns directly affecting the districts and people that those Representatives were elected to represent. The Celebrating America's Heritage Act authorizes $135 billion to be spent over the next 15 years for nine already established National Heritage Areas and six new National Heritage Areas. One of the new National Heritage Areas created in the bill is the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, which includes land in Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia. Mr. Bartlett of Maryland and Mr. Goode of Virginia have expressed concerns that the land in the districts they represent is included in this new National Heritage Area and that this bill does not guarantee local residents will be allowed to participate in decisions affecting the area in their districts. If Congress is going to dictate how land is to be used, we must make sure that those who are directly affected by such designations are, in fact, supportive of the legislation. I believe that all Members should be afforded an opportunity to have their voices heard on behalf of those they represent when their district is directly impacted. It was remarked yesterday in testimony before the Rules Committee by Mr. Young of Alaska, ``That is just good government.'' What he was referring to obviously was to have a Member talk about issues that affect their district. Unfortunately, if adopted, this 39th closed rule of the year will deny Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Goode and, in fact, all Members of the House, the opportunity to bring forth their concerns to attempt to amend--to perfect this bill. Although National Heritage Areas typically do not create additional Federal lands, the Federal Government can significantly impact the use of the land in and surrounding National Heritage Areas. Mr. Speaker, coming from an area in my area in central Washington that is 40 percent federally owned, I want to take this opportunity to discuss my concerns with future actions that could lead to additional Federal lands. As I have said many times before on this floor, I believe Federal land management agencies simply have too much land to manage effectively. Federal land agencies continue to struggle to maintain trails and facilities on public lands as well as to manage unnaturally high fuel loads that can lead to catastrophic wildfires. We had that discussion on the previous rule; yet, year after year we are spending precious tax dollars to buy up more private property to take off local tax rolls. There are far more pressing issues affecting public lands management that we could be considering today. For example, Mr. Speaker, we should be discussing the extension of payments to forested counties for rural schools and roads or for development of clean energy on public lands. These are far more pressing issues, and they are not going to go away. I believe the House should act quickly in a bipartisan manner to address them. Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. In closing, I would like to read a quote from the distinguished majority leader (Mr. Hoyer) from Congress Daily PM on December 5, 2006, a little more than 10 months ago. He said, Mr. Speaker, ``We intend to have a Rules Committee that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.'' Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader said that a little bit more than 10 months ago. Unfortunately, the Democrat majority is once again not living up to the promises they made to Americans just less than a year ago. We are shutting out the people and the Representatives who are directly impacted by this legislation with this closed rule. Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote against this, the 39th closed rule of the year. 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. 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 reserve my time.

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. Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 523, legislation I introduced to convey certain Bureau of Land Management land to the Douglas County Public Utility District in Washington state. The Douglas County PUD operates the Wells Hydropower Project on the Columbia River, in North Central Washington. The PUD manages the Wells Hydroelectric Dam and the associated reservoir for multiple purposes, including power generation, fish and wildlife protection, and recreation. Almost all of the land encompassing the project area is owned by the PUD, with the exception of several small BLM holdings. Passing this legislation enables the PUD to manage the project in a far more efficient manner. It also allows the BLM to concentrate its limited resources elsewhere, in areas where there are large contiguous blocks of BLM land. It is clear that we can achieve a better and more efficient management of our resources with this land conveyance. In addition, since the Douglas PUD is a public agency under Washington state law, this conveyance simply moves land from the control of one public agency to the control of another agency. It is also important to note that the Douglas PUD has a stellar reputation as a steward of the environment. They worked diligently with federal and state agencies, tribal governments, and environmental groups to develop a model Habitat Conservation Plan for salmon and steelhead. The PUD also protects other forms of wildlife and provides public access wherever possible. As my colleagues may recall, similar legislation passed the House last year under suspension. There is one important addition to the legislation this year. H.R. 523 calls for the proceeds of this land sale to be used to improve public access to existing BLM lands in Washington state. I am pleased that I was able to reach a consensus with members of the Natural Resources Committee to ensure that the proceeds from this sale will stay in the state where the land conveyance occurred--my home state of Washington. I am also pleased to note that these funds will go towards increasing the ability of our constituents to access their public lands. It is my intention to see that these funds go towards projects like the Juniper Dunes Wilderness Area in Washington state. Due to its close proximity to the Tri-Cities, Juniper Dunes is a highly popular recreation area for serious hikers as well as families who are looking for an interesting place to explore with their children. Despite its popularity, it is extremely difficult for the public to visit Juniper Dunes. The Dunes are currently surrounded by private lands. Therefore, in order to visit the public area, one has to cross private property. H.R. 523 gives the BLM the financial resources and the flexibility they need to improve access to Juniper Dunes. Finally, I am pleased that I was able to work with the Resources Committee to include language clarifying that the BLM will retain authority under the Federal Power Act for the current FERC relicensing of the Wells project. This authority will remain with the BLM until a new license is in place, which is expected in 2012. I want to thank my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee, specifically Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young and Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva and Subcommittee Ranking Member Bishop and their staffs for all their hard work on this legislation. H.R. 523 will benefit the Douglas County PUD, the BLM as well as improve vitally needed public access throughout Washington state. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Gohmert of Texas.