Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point once again, the reason that there were no Republican amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee is because there was a clear, clear understanding when the bill was passed out of the Judiciary Committee that the issues and concerns that were raised by the Republicans would be addressed in a bipartisan way, and the vehicle by which they would be addressed was a manager's amendment, which is a normal process when you bring bills to the floor. That commitment was apparently not fulfilled. By the time that the manager's amendment was drafted, with the idea that supposedly in a bipartisan way these issues would be addressed, it was too late for any Republican to offer an amendment because it was past the deadline that was put in place by this new majority on the Rules Committee. Therefore, there was no chance for Republicans to submit any amendments. Therefore, there were no amendments that were submitted. So I just wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, that the reason that there were no Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee is because a promise and a commitment was broken between August 2 and October 2, yesterday, when we met on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say under questioning when I asked Mr. Forbes, because he stated that the deadline had passed when the manager's amendment which did not address their concerns was introduced, he then, of course, would be prohibited from offering amendments. I asked him if there were an opportunity in the next 24 hours, i.e., from yesterday until today, could they prepare amendments to address these concerns, he said, ``Yes.'' I hope that the gentlewoman will agree with me that that is what he said yesterday in front of the Rules Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlewoman further yield on that point?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding. She was in the committee yesterday when Mr. Forbes testified. I would hope that the gentlewoman would agree with me that when Mr. Forbes testified under questioning from me asking if he felt that he had assurances that these issues would be worked out from the time that the committee passed the bill out of committee in August until now, and he said that he felt that that commitment was a strong commitment, and therefore, he didn't offer any amendments. Now, would the gentlewoman agree with me that that was what Mr. Forbes said?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2740, the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act. This bill is an attempt to ensure that all Federal civilian contractors can be prosecuted for crimes they commit abroad. The issue before us today is not, Mr. Speaker, a policy decision to determine whether or not contractors should be in Iraq, but, rather, the issue is whether the principle of current law should be applied to civilian contractors. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Forbes, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security in the Judiciary Committee testified before the Rules Committee that while the intent of this legislation is right, this bill is very, very poorly drafted. During markup of the bill by the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Forbes and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee raised concerns with Members on the other side of the aisle. Republicans agreed that they would work to move this legislation forward because of assurances made by the majority members of the committee that their concerns would be worked out. Mr. Forbes testified before the Rules Committee that his main concerns with the bill were a lack of clear definitions, vague language and Federal mandates on the FBI without additional resources. Mr. Speaker, a manager's amendment was submitted to the Rules Committee and it wasn't until after the Rules Committee amendment deadline had passed Monday evening that Mr. Forbes found that none of the concerns raised by Republicans were addressed in the manager's amendment. At this point, of course, it was too late for Mr. Forbes and other Members to submit amendments. Had they tried to submit amendments to the Rules Committee past the deadline, they likely would have been turned away at the Rules Committee door, just as many Members, including myself, have been this Congress. Yesterday, the ranking member, Mr. Dreier, attempted to provide an open rule for consideration of this bill. An open rule would have allowed any Member of the House of Representatives an opportunity to come forward and amend the bill, and especially those members of the Judiciary Committee that felt that they were left out of this process. However, the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee rejected this idea on a party line vote of 8-4. Mr. Dreier then attempted to allow Mr. Forbes to offer an amendment on the floor today to make changes to the bill in order to restore the commitment that was once made by the Democrat majority. But I am disappointed that this attempt was also rejected on a party line vote of 8-4. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee over 2 months ago and yet the Democrat majority failed to make good on their commitment to address the reasonable and entirely justifiable concerns raised by Republicans. Mr. Speaker, contractor accountability is an issue that should be discussed and addressed in a bipartisan manner. But there are legitimate concerns with the way this bill was drafted. Unfortunately, this rule denies Members, including all Republicans, an opportunity to improve the underlying bill. Because the Rules Committee has once again chosen to stifle bipartisanship and deliberation by bringing forth this restrictive rule, I must urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, House Resolution 702. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. It's in Wenatchee, Washington, the Wenatchee Valley Health Clinic. So it's an egregious abuse of the rules, in my view. I don't want to take all the time. I yield back to my friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. They said they intended to. And let's look at this from a little different perspective. This facility has been in business for 67 years. Clearly, clearly they have a following in that community, or they wouldn't have survived in that competitive atmosphere unless there were people that wanted to go to that facility.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That is exactly right. It was done purposely. They first said we must be mistaken. But after probing and asking questions, they were essentially saying that you could not get any Medicare reimbursement if you were a physician-owned facility. Now, I just don't understand what the motivation is behind that. But the point is, and we are obviously working on this because we don't want this to happen, but this is what happens when the process gets all messed up and you start rewriting bills in the middle of the night. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out those two examples. I think it's contrary to the promises that were made by the new majority and what they have carried out. I think that is something that needs to be talked about. I want to thank the ranking member for putting this Special Order together so we can discuss these issues in an open manner.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. They said they would be out of a business because of a provision that related to the Medicare part that they added to the SCHIP bill as related to physician-owned facilities. This facility was put in place in 1940, 67 years ago, and yet the provision within this bill said that you could not have physician-owned hospitals. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this clinic in Wenatchee, Washington, covers an area the size of the State of Maryland. Now, if the idea is to expand health care, why would you potentially shut down a facility that covers the geographic size of the State of Maryland? We went around and around with those that were testifying in favor of this particular bill, and they first started out and said no, you're mistaken, that is not in the bill. But after discussions going on with my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and me going back and forth, they admitted at nearly 3:00 in the morning that yes, that provision was in there, and it was intended to be in there.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. We were promised this after the election, I remind my friend from California, this was after the election. The reason for this is very obvious. The role of the Rules Committee is to funnel legislation so that every Member could have a possibility to be heard. We have 19 standing committees. Because we have two vacancies, there are 433 Members of the House today. We simply couldn't control this unless we had the standing committees doing their work. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee this year is on track to rewrite more bills in the Rules Committee than we ever did during the 12 years that we were in control of Congress. They have done it with troops in Iraq. They did it with lobby reform. They did it with the farm bill legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about the farm bill. I come from rural America. I was very much involved in that process as we are going forward. I recall very, very specifically that when the farm bill came out of committee, it came out of committee with strong bipartisan support. Yet, when we went to the Rules Committee the next day to report out a rule, there was a massive tax increase that was put on that farm bill. I remember the distinguished ranking member, last year's chairman, of the Agriculture Committee, Bob Goodlatte from Virginia, came to the Rules Committee and testified. He said, I felt betrayed by what went on, because he was not a part of that process. I know, I can speak to the bipartisan nature of how this farm bill was put together as it relates to the farm because there was a hearing in my district. There were four Republicans and four Democrats that showed up to this hearing last June, so this was a process in the making. Yet, at the last minute, all that process was thrown aside, and it was a broken deal. It is bad because of what is happening. The policies that we have in place have potential detrimental effects to the farmers. The farm bill, I might add, expired at the end of September. We put a 2-week extension on that. I suspect we will probably have to have another 2-week extension on that. It is not right, in a body of this size, to rewrite bills in the Rules Committee. I want to follow up on my friend from Florida who talked about the SCHIP bill. That bill was enacted on a bipartisan basis in 1997. I supported that. It was part of a larger bill. That was probably the most egregious rewrite. We met at 1:00 in the morning, only had about an hour to look at what was in the bill, and there was a lot of rumors going around, but we met at 1:00 in the morning, a 500-page bill. I got a heads-up from a clinic in my district that is physician owned that they would be out of business if this bill were signed into law.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman saying that. I note that that statement was made after the election. Presumably, there was a decision made that the campaign was about change, and so this statement was made after the election. The statement that I have up here by the distinguished chairman now of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter, was also made after the election. It says: ``It is our goal to use rules responsibly, opening up the workings of the House and using it to usher in the most honest and ethical Congress in history. An open process will mean that more commonsense legislation written in the national interest will get to the House floor and be voted on.''

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate your getting this time. I appreciate my colleagues that are going to speak later. Mr. Speaker, this issue is about promises, because we live in the greatest country in the world where people make their decisions on who will govern them by the promises that they made. I would really like to emphasize the point that has been made several times by the distinguished ranking member and the gentleman from Florida, that process has consequences, because ultimately process turns into substance, it turns into laws, and, of course, that is what governs us.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California, my good friend (Mr. Cardoza), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a former small business owner, I recognize the need for legislation to help update and streamline Small Business Administration programs and leverage new investment strategies in order to expand small business investment. However, we must also make a commitment to small business that tax relief measures that passed the House the last several years should not be allowed to expire at the end of this year. With a month left before Congress's target adjournment date and just 3 months left of 2007, small businesses are depending on Congress to act quickly to renew tax relief which has allowed them to create more jobs and grow, helping America's economy grow at the same time. Tax relief and reduced regulatory burdens can make all the difference whether a small business is profitable at the end of the year or is forced to close its doors. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee adopted a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3567, the Small Business Investment Expansion Act of 2007. While this rule makes all submitted amendments in order, I believe the underlying bipartisan bill that is supported both by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Small Business should have been considered under an open rule on the House floor today. Yesterday the ranking member, Mr. Dreier, on Rules gave the Democrat majority on Rules the opportunity to double the number of open rules that this body has heard other than appropriation bills reported from the committee this Congress. Unfortunately, Democrat members of the Rules Committee denied bringing the underlying bipartisan bill to the floor under an open rule process. Thus only two, Mr. Speaker, only two of 433 Members of the House will be able to offer amendments on this bill today. While this is disappointing, this, unfortunately, is not an unusual practice of this Rules Committee, despite promises of openness made to the American people just last year. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, House rules were adopted that require the disclosure and allow Members to challenge earmarks in appropriation bills; however, under current House rules, earmarks and authorization bills and tax bills do not have to be disclosed and are not allowed to be challenged. This loophole needs to be closed, and I am going to give my colleagues in this House another opportunity to send a strong message to the American taxpayers that we are serious about earmark transparency. Therefore, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow for immediate consideration of House Resolution 479, the earmark accountability rule. By defeating the previous question, we will be able to address earmark enforceability in order to restore credibility to this House. By considering and approving House Resolution 479, we will send a strong message to American taxpayers that the House will no longer turn its head the other way when it comes to transparency of earmarks. As my colleague Lincoln Diaz-Balart observed yesterday, it has been a good week for earmarks and a bad week for transparency. We have an opportunity to change that, and I hope the Democrat majority will not make this another missed opportunity to make good on their promises to seek earmark transparency to American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question. 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, 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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, this is a disappointing day for the American people. Here we are, nearly 9 months into this Congress controlled by the Democrat majority, and still the majority has failed to live up to their promises by denying every American taxpayer accountability when it comes to transparency of earmarks. Just yesterday, a challenge was made to an earmark slipped into a bill 299 pages long that had not been disclosed. The Democrat majority certified the bill was ``earmark free,'' but then denied all accountability and scrutiny of this earmark. It is vital that the House act today to allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, such as the SCHIP bill yesterday, and not just on appropriation bills. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that they may amend the rule to allow for immediate consideration of House Resolution 479, the Earmark Accountability bill. By defeating the previous question, the House will be able to consider the continuing resolution today, but will also be able to address earmark enforceability in order to restore the credibility of this House. By considering and approving House Resolution 479, we will send a strong message to the American taxpayers that this House will no longer turn its head the other way when it comes to transparency of earmarks. So, 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 want to thank the gentlelady and chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in just 5 days, fiscal year 2007 will come to an end and a new fiscal year will begin. I am disappointed that this rule and the underlying continuing resolution are on the floor today. Not one, let me repeat that, not one spending bill has been sent to the President for his signature this year. Congress has a responsibility to fund the priorities of the government, and here we are, just days before the start of a new fiscal year, and not one of the 12 spending bills that must be signed into law have been signed. So, Mr. Speaker, I will support the underlying continuing resolution because I recognize the government must continue to be funded. It is my strong hope, however, that within the next 6 weeks, 12 separate conference reports will come before the House of Representatives. I do not believe that omnibus bills are the best vehicles for spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, and I truly hope that that will not be what we end with on November 16. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I know a number of Members want to express their views, and we will afford them that opportunity. Madam Speaker, I ask the House to join the delegation from Washington State in observing a moment of silence in honor of our former colleague.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I inform the House of Representatives of the untimely death of our dear friend and former colleague, Jennifer Dunn, this morning. Words cannot express the shock and sorrow that I feel today. I know that all of you join me in keeping her family, sons Reagan, Bryant and stepson Angus Thomson, and her loving husband, Keith Thomson, in our thoughts and prayers. All of us who have served with Jennifer Dunn in the House have known the kindness, the wit and political savvy that she embodied. She was vibrant, enjoyed life, and she always had a kind word for everyone. She was known, Madam Speaker, as a fierce advocate when it came to supporting Republican women for election, both locally in our State of Washington and nationally. On a personal note, for 32 years she was my friend, fellow Ronald Reagan activist, my State party chairman and colleague in the House where she served the Eighth District of Washington from 1993 to 2005. Always positive, dignified and poised in everything that she did. A loving wife and mother, as well as a political leader with great skill. Today, Washington State and our Nation has lost a giant, a true leader and a stateswoman in every sense of the word. Madam Speaker, she will be dearly missed. I yield to my friend, the senior Democrat from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I wish to recognize Amy Mumma of Ellensburg, Washington for her contributions to the wine industry in Washington state and around the world. Ms. Mumma is the Founder and Director of Central Washington University's World Wine Program. She was recently selected to serve as President of the professional jury for the second International Wine Women Awards, held in Paris, France. The Wine Women Awards is an international competition honoring female leaders in the wine industry. Ms. Mumma was the only American selected to be on the prestigious jury, comprised of well-known wine experts from around the world. In 2005, she was herself honored as the International Wine Woman of 2005-2006. Ms. Mumma was selected from over 160 candidates from 20 countries for her extensive technical knowledge and unique personal vision of wine, and her understanding of the global wine industry. Ms. Mumma has presented both nationally and internationally on the topics of wine faults, marketing, and professional wine analysis. Her extensive wine education includes an Advanced Diploma in Wine and Spirits from the Wine and Spirit Education Trust in London and a Diploma of Wine Studies and Tasting from France's University of Burgundy. She is currently a Master of Wine candidate at the prestigious Institute of Masters of Wine in London, England. In 2003, Ms. Mumma founded the World Wine Program at Central Washington University and has worked hard to enhance the knowledge of students, professionals, and consumers of wine and the wine industry. The program currently includes a Wine Trade Professional Certificate program, a Wine Trade Tourism minor, consumer courses, and Wine Trade Training Courses for wine industry employees. Ms. Mumma is dedicated to expanding the World Wine Program by establishing a comprehensive program examining wine faults and methods for wine professionals to identify and reduce the number of faults in wine. The program promises to improve wine quality and ensure the continued vitality of the wine industry in Washington state and the Nation. I commend Ms. Mumma for her achievements in the global wine industry and her commitment to providing world-renowned wine education opportunities to wine professionals, students, and consumers in Washington state.