Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentlelady is prepared to close, I am prepared to close on my side. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous question we will give Members the ability to vote today on the merits of changing current law to ensure our intelligence community has the tools they need to protect our Nation from potentially imminent terrorist attack. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my opening remarks that I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can address the very, very important issue of reform of FISA. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico, a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mrs. Wilson.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Dr. Ehlers).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a real doctor from Georgia, a member of the Science and Technology Committee, and a former member of the Rules Committee, Dr. Gingrey, for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider a conference report that incorporates several similar measures that have passed the House and Senate authorizing funding for scientific research and increasing the number of students majoring in math, science, engineering and foreign languages. The several bills that passed both Houses were approved by overwhelming bipartisan votes. The authorization level for all of these bipartisan bills combined a total $24 billion in the House. I am concerned, however, that the conference report today contains over $43 billion in overall authorizations, nearly double. It is vital that the United States continue to grow more globally competitive in the areas of scientific research and technology. Federal and private investment in supporting research and development is essential to the health of our economy and our competitiveness as a Nation. We must plan for the future by areas of basic research and science today. However, there is also something we must do today, and that is update our Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act laws. This body has missed several important opportunities to consider changing our laws to account for technological advances, and now we are faced with a limited time remaining before Congress recesses for the August district work period. You can all agree or disagree that our FISA laws need to be updated. All I will be asking my colleagues to do is to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Members will have the opportunity to debate and consider fixing our outdated FISA law that currently requires our intelligence community to ask a judge permission before listening to telephone conversations of foreign terrorists in foreign countries who threaten our Nation's security. Let me be clear also. If the previous question is defeated, the America COMPETES conference report will still be on the floor today. This is not an attempt whatsoever to delay this conference report. It is only an attempt to bring this issue to the floor as soon as possible, but, more importantly, before the Congress recesses. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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, I appreciate that. Again, I am particularly sensitive, because of the nature of the dams that we are talking about on the Snake River and on the Columbia River in my State. But there's also larger dams throughout the Pacific Northwest. My understanding of this legislation, it was talking about dams, as the gentleman from Oregon described. I understand that. So I appreciate the chairman's consideration.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate that. I think it is something we need to look at. We have oversight nevertheless, anyway. If the gentlewoman is prepared to close, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself 30 seconds. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I appreciate the gentleman simply saying that this is intended to go after dams that probably need to be looked at for a variety of reasons. And, in that sense, I obviously don't have a problem. My problem is long term, as I suggested, but I appreciate the gentleman working with me. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a member of the T&I Committee, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. A point that I am simply making is that that is a major part, those dams on the Snake River and the Columbia River are major power sources for all of our electrical power and, therefore, for our economy. And I am just simply concerned because sometimes we don't look longer term enough. But if we look longer term enough and we start putting provisions in where it is a regular thing of takeout dams, then perhaps in the future, I hope not, I will do everything I can, but perhaps in the future that all of a sudden somebody will take a shot at those larger dams. I think that would be detrimental to our economy in the Northwest. I yield back to my friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. As the gentleman knows, because we're both from the Northwest, we have large dams that I alluded to in my remarks that provide hydroelectric power for all of the Northwest. And I know the provision in this bill does not apply to those dams. But, nevertheless, I think we in the Northwest need to be cognizant of the fact that, once you start these things, sometime in the future it may go up.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Brown.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider a conference report that provides for the conservation and development of water and related resources and authorizes the construction of various projects in order to improve rivers and harbors in the United States. Our Nation's water resource infrastructure is critical to our economy, transportation system, power generation, flood control, and environmental protection and restoration. This is especially true in the Pacific Northwest. Our region's river system is a great resource, one that must be well managed and protected. Hydroelectric dams provide clean, low-cost, renewable power. These facilities also provide a system of locks that allow for the efficient transport of tons of agricultural products to coastal ports, which reduces congestion on our highways and our rail systems. The coastal ports that receive the river-barged goods and products are the gateways to overseas markets and also need very careful attention. The success of farmers and manufacturers throughout the Northwest depend upon these ports being navigable and appropriately maintained. Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions of this conference report that are important to the communities and individuals that I represent in central Washington that I would like to highlight. Like the WRDA bill that passed the House in the last Congress and the one that passed in April of this year, I am particularly pleased that the conference report includes a provision to permit the Corps of Engineers employees working at the dams in the Pacific Northwest to participate in wage surveys that are conducted to determine their rate of pay. This important provision will allow these employees the same participation allowed to similar employees at dams in the region operated by the Bonneville Power Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation. This conference report also includes language that will allow the Corps to specifically give credit to the Port of Sunnyside in my district for funding it has invested to maintain progress on its wetland restoration and wastewater treatment project. This project is a creative initiative by the Port of Sunnyside to improve the river habitat and provide for greater economic growth in the local community. This provision ensures that the Port of Sunnyside gets proper credit for the funds it invests as it works with the Corps to make this project a reality. Finally, this legislation lifts Corps restrictions on the development of several Port of Pasco properties. I am very hopeful that the elimination of these flowage easements will allow beneficial uses of this prime riverfront property to move forward for the betterment of the city of Pasco and the Tri-Cities. But, Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by a change in a law inserted into this final bill that expressly authorizes the Secretary of the Army to approve removal of small dams under the Corps of Engineers Section 206 program. The House is expected to consider a Democrat energy bill at some point this week, and I believe it doesn't bode well that we start off with making the removal of dams easier in this country. Dams provide power, drinking water, irrigation, transportation, and flood control. We need to value these benefits and recognize that hydropower dams are a clean and renewable energy resource. Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides regular review and updating of congressional direction to the Corps of Engineers and ensures that existing projects are maintained and that new needs are met. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) 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. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time to speak against this closed rule that bars every single Member of this House from offering an amendment to change this Democrat bill, a bill, Madam Speaker, which I am compelled to oppose. This nearly 500-page bill is being rammed through the House with the Rules Committee meeting on this bill at 1 a.m. this morning and with no Members even being allowed to propose fixes or alternatives because we are told it is absolutely imperative that Congress act to provide government-run health care coverage to more Americans. So I am compelled to ask: If the purpose of this bill is to provide more health care coverage for Americans, then why are the Medicare plans of over 8 million seniors in our country being put at risk by this legislation? Why are over 150,000 Washingtonian State seniors going to have their Medicare Advantage health coverage put at risk by cuts in this bill? Why are one in 12 seniors on Medicare in my congressional district facing a potential loss of their current coverage? How do you expand health care to more Americans if you are forcing the elimination of Medicare plans that seniors have chosen? Madam Speaker, even more troubling to me is a provision in this bill that would force the closure of the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center in my district in Wenatchee, Washington. After reading the bill, this health center wrote a letter to me that states: ``Should section 651,'' of this bill, ``be enacted into law as written, we foresee the likely closure of the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center and our outlying facilities in the next few years.'' July 26, 2007. Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Doc Hastings, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Cantwell and Representative Hastings: Late yesterday, Representatives Dingell, Rangel, Stark and Pallone released legislation entitled the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 (CHAMP). Upon review of this bill, we discovered a provision, Section 651 that would be devastating to Wenatchee Valley Medical Center. It appears that this legislation is on a fast-track towards enactment by the House and possibly by the entire Congress. We seek your immediate assistance in attempting: to either modify this provision or have it removed from the bill entirely. Should Section 651 be enacted into law as written, we foresee the likely closure of WVMC and our outlying facilities in the next few years. The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center was founded in 1940 in a rural and remote area of Washington State. The three founding physicians desired to establish something akin to the Mayo Clinic model in a medically underserved area. Through committed work, personal investment, risk taking, and collaboration over a geographic region that spans more than 12,000 square miles, the Medical Center has adhered to and largely achieved that model and vision. The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is organized as a hospital system. The system is located in eight different communities in the north-central area of Washington State. Those communities are Wenatchee, East Wenatchee, Moses Lake, Cashmere, Royal City, Omak, Tonasket, and Oroville. The Medical Center is one of the largest employers in its region with 1500 employees. Its physicians provide the majority of the admissions, medical support, and physician staffing for these community hospitals: Central Washington Hospital (Wenatchee); Wenatchee Valley Hospital (Wenatchee); Samaritan Hospital (Moses Lake); Mid-Valley Hospital (Omak); and North Valley Hospital (Tonasket). The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a 100% physician- owned and directed hospital system. Each of the 150+ physicians who are ``owners'' of the WVMC own less than 1% of the Center. The proposed legislation would require us to stop being what we are and attempt to morph into something different. We have concluded that selling 60% of our hospital (to whom?) as required by Section 651, and preventing WVMC from growing beyond it's current bed size, as also required by Section 651 is non-sustainable, a death-knell. We could attempt to cope initially by closing money-losing sites like Royal City, Tonasket, and Oroville. The closure of the latter two sites will have the corollary impact of depriving North Valley Hospital of seventy five percent of its medical staff, and would likely result in its closure. We would have to drop money-losing services like the Medical Hospitalist program ($550,000 loss per year) and Trauma Surgeon on-call program ($850,000 loss per year) at Central Washington Hospital. We have supported those programs because they save lives, are cost-effective (for society at large), and are likely a pre- requisite to induce many physicians in the physician recruiting climate to any practice setting. A broad and comprehensive delivery system in a rural region is an inter-connected and fragile organism. The proposed legislation fixes a problem that doesn't exist in either North Central Washington or the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, and will unleash a series of decisions that will be deleterious in the short-run, and likely calamitous over the next five years. The proposal needs modification, and a significant increase in flexibility to reflect actual on the ground actualities in rural delivery systems. The multi-specialty physician practice that is part of the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center includes more than 30 medical and surgical specialties in addition to a large number of primary care providers. The Medical Center provides the only services available in the region in the following specialties: 1. Medical Oncology 2. Radiation Oncology 3. Pulmonary Medicine 4. Medical Hospitalist 5. Surgical Hospitalist 6. Vascular Surgery 7. Neuro-Surgery 8. Cardiology 9. Rheumatology 10. Endocrinology 11. Nephrology 12. Gastroenterology 13. Neurology 14. Urology 15. Dermatology 16. Physiatry This year, the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center will serve more than 150,000 unique patients. Ninety four percent of those people reside in the four rural counties (Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Okanogan) where the Medical Center is located. The majority of these patients have long-standing relationships with the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, some of those continuous relationships reach all the way back to the organization's founding. The four counties in North Central Washington have a combined population of 240,000. A comparison of the patients served by the Medical Center to the region's population indicates that the Medical Center is a key, and likely indispensable, component of the region's healthcare infrastructure. The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a collaborator. It offers training opportunities to medical students and residents of the University of Washington and other medical schools; and has many training affiliations with area community colleges in the allied health professions. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center specialists outreach more than 1200 times annually to hospitals and clinics in outlying communities. Medical Center staff provides 24/7 coverage for the Emergency Room at North Valley Hospital in Tonasket. Medical Center staff provide 24/7 medical and surgical hospitalist coverage for the Trauma Center at Central Washington Hospital. The Medical Center is making its Computerized Medical Record available to all practitioners in the region, and its Patient Profile is being advanced by the Community Choice PHCO as a potential continuity of care record for the region. The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center has a long-standing tradition of serving all comers, regardless of their ability to pay. The Medical Center has a needs based Compassionate Care program that is well publicized and which will provide more than $3 million in charitable care this year. The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a cost-effective health care delivery system and is conservative in its ordering and treatment patterns. The Medical Center has ongoing focus and initiatives in areas like prescriptions, medical imaging, hospital and nursing home lengths of stay, and cardiovascular interventions. The Medical Center is a Medicaid safety net provider, and accepts referrals from throughout the state. The Medical Center ranks among the top 5 Medicaid providers in Washington State. The region has a high and growing Medicare aged demographic. The Medical Center provides a variety of services needed by Medicare patients. The combination of Medicaid and Medicare represents sixty percent of the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center's volumes. Most healthcare financial analysts would maintain that those percentages are uneconomic and non-sustainable; that the cost-shift is too great. As stated earlier, the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a hospital system. It was organized in that fashion in order to survive as a vital, dynamic contributor to healthcare and its delivery in North Central Washington. Having the opportunity to bill as a hospital provides the economic life ring that enables the Medical Center to compete in national markets for the physician recruits that our undermanned and health shortage regional delivery system is desperate for. Any ``profits'' earned by the Medical Center are plowed back into the delivery system; either to subsidize new services (like the recent opening of the Royal City Clinic in a community that was without healthcare for the last 2 years) or to invest in new services such as Image Guided Radiation Therapy and a Chemo-therapy Infusion Center in Moses Lake. The Medical Center is currently in the process of recruiting 29 new and replacement physicians to place throughout our region. A number of these recruits have been requested by the hospitals we co-labor with. There is significant working capital investment required to establish these practices, and frequently a tremendous facility investment needed to house these practices. Both of these investments are currently ongoing; and will be a death-trap if the proposed hospital self-referral legislation is enacted as currently drafted. If you or your staff have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our Administrator, Shaun Koos, Jay Johnson, our Associate Administrator or Bill Finerfrock our Washington DC Representative. Your immediate consideration of this matter is critical to the continued availability of healthcare in North-Central Washington State. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, David Weber, CEO/Chairman, Board of Directors, Wenatchee Valley Medical Center. Madam Speaker, the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center was founded in 1940 by three physicians. In the last 67 years, it has grown and now employs 1,500, serves a population of a quarter of a million people in an area the size of Maryland, and treats 150,000 patients a year. This bill would force its closure because it prohibits any hospital from being more than 40 percent owned by doctors if they are to continue to receive Medicare payments for providing care for seniors. The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is 100 percent opened by 150 doctors, and I fail to see why this should be made illegal in the United States of America. At just after 2 a.m. this morning in the Rules Committee, I raised this concern with the two gentlemen representing the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. When I first asked why the medical center treating 150,000 patients should be forced to close, the initial reaction of Mr. Pallone of New Jersey and Mr. McDermott from Seattle, Washington, was that the medical center and I must be mistaken; we were wrong. They then stated that other hospitals had called them asking about this section as well. Madam Speaker, something is terribly wrong in the House of Representatives if hospitals across this country are calling committees in a panic to find out if health care legislation is forcing them to shut down. Subsequently, after some lengthy discussion in the early morning hours, the two Democrat committee representatives eventually acknowledged that I just might be right about what's going to happen in Wenatchee, and they said that's just what they intend to happen under this bill. Let me restate this. This is not an unintended consequence. It is an intentional consequence. My colleague from Seattle said that some people might squeal about what this bill does, but he stated that's what was needed to be done to save money. This bill saves money by putting the medical center out of business? I sought to fix this provision by offering an amendment to the Rules Committee with Mrs. McMorris Rodgers from Washington whose constituents would also be affected by this bill. Our amendment simply would have removed one requirement of the bill that would force certain hospitals to close if more than 40 percent were owned by physicians. I'm dismayed, Madam Speaker, that on straight party-line vote that amendment was not allowed to be debated on the floor today. Madam Speaker, I voted to create the SCHIP program, and I believe it must be renewed, but when we are faced with a bill that puts Medicare plans of over 150,000 seniors in Washington at risk and threatens the closure of the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center and all the patients it serves, I can't support this legislation. I must ask, what else does this bill do that's not being explained? What other undiscovered ways will it reduce citizens' access to health care? It doesn't have to be this way, Madam Speaker. This House can defeat this closed rule and we can have an opportunity to open the process. And with that, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The House of Representatives is expected to adjourn later this week for the August district work period. This district work period gives Members the opportunity to leave this humid area in Washington D.C. to work in their respective districts and listen to what is on the minds of the people that we all represent. Congressional ratings are at an all-time low, and I feel that is in part due to the fact that Congress is failing to address pressing issues. I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, as I mentioned earlier. Voting ``no'' will not delay the consideration of the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration appropriations bill. Let me qualify that. It will delay it for 1 hour. It will, however, give Members the opportunity to vote on the merits of updating current law so that our intelligence community has the tools it needs to monitor the telephone conversations of foreign terrorists physically located in foreign countries. Let me repeat that, foreign terrorists in foreign countries. I hope that the Democrat majority will not stall any longer in allowing the House to vote on this very vital issue. Each minute we wait to act, our Intelligence Committee could be missing vital information, therefore increasing our risk of another attack on U.S. soil. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material prior to the vote on the previous question.