Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of 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. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who spent a long career in education and also a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. McKeon of California.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just point out to my friend from Massachusetts that, since Republicans have been in control, that Pell Grants, individually, have nearly doubled in that length of time. I think the students are being well served, and they are responsible. And I think that is a very, very good policy. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Minnesota, a member of the Education and Workforce Committee (Mr. Kline).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the Democrat majority approved what I consider an irresponsible budget plan that calls for more spending now followed by massive tax increases in the future. Their budget plan only called for one committee, the Education and Labor Committee, to find cost savings, and that turned out, Mr. Speaker, to be a mere $750 million over 5 years. In comparison, when Republicans were in control, the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution called on eight House and Senate committees to find a total of $35 billion in savings over 5 years. As a result, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Deficit Reduction Act, which saved American taxpayers $38 billion. House Resolution 531 provides for the consideration of the Democrat majority's attempt to rein in spending, the College Cost Reduction Act. However, Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than an illusion. While the bill does find savings, it immediately spends most of it, $18 billion, to create nine new entitlement programs. These entitlement programs, which grow automatically every year without congressional review, pose the largest threat to our long-term economic health. Essentially, these programs run on auto pilot with no accountability to the taxpayers writing the check. Entitlement programs currently today make up well over half of the Federal budget and in the next decade will consume nearly two-thirds of our budget. History has proven that once an entitlement program is created, it lives forever, and even improving these programs has proven to be a very difficult task. Taxpayers will be paying for the new entitlement programs created under this proposal for at least 5 years and likely for many years to come, thus wiping out any savings that may be achieved with this bill in the short term. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I share the goal of increasing access to higher education. Education in general is very important to the future of our country. But there are many approaches the Democrat majority has chosen to take in this bill that shifts the responsibility for personal decisions made by students to the taxpayers. For instance, this bill guarantees that borrowers, no matter how much they borrow, will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their income in loan payments and allows the borrowers to have the balance of their loans disappear, disappear, Mr. Speaker, after 20 years and thus be paid for by the American taxpayer. This bill also requires those same taxpayers to pick up the outstanding student loan tab for public sector employees after just 10 years. Now, Mr. Speaker, while I agree we should encourage people to enter the public sector, I feel this approach places too heavy a fiscal burden on American taxpayers. I believe that we must do all that we can do to make education more affordable for those who wish to pursue their education so that more Americans can achieve the dream of graduating from college. With tuition costs on the rise, students and their families are facing the inevitable question of how to pay for college education. The cost of attaining a college degree has increased over the years, and students are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for college without financial assistance. So I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must take a balanced approach that increases the transparency of higher education costs and targets aid to the neediest students while controlling spending and lowering the deficit. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will support the McKeon substitute amendment, which increases the maximum Pell Grant award by $350 next year and $100 thereafter and provides a plan for improved accountability with regard to tuition costs. If the McKeon amendment is not adopted, I will oppose the College Cost Reduction Act, which increases a maze of Federal regulations and bureaucracy for students and parents to navigate, directs more resources to institutions of higher education rather than students, and creates new entitlement spending at the long-term expense of the American taxpayer. With that, Mr. Speaker, 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, 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, I want to thank my friend from California for yielding me the time. I have to say that I stand here in opposition to this bill, and I am one that generally supports fair trade liberalization efforts. I believe that when properly structured, trade agreements can benefit all parties involved. But, Mr. Speaker, the Andean Trade Preference Act is not a trade agreement. This is an agreement to give access to the U.S. market in return for reduced drug production by certain Andean countries. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. This is an agreement to give access to the U.S. market in return for reduced drug production by certain Andean countries. The original idea may have been a noble one, and it probably still is, but the Act has proven to be a failure, and as a result, American asparagus growers have paid the price. In practice, the Andean Trade Preference Act has resulted in higher South American drug production and a steep loss of acreage and processing of asparagus in the United States, as reflected by this chart where in the last 16 years the amount of acreage has been reduced by 50 percent. A recent International Trade Commission report found that asparagus was the domestic commodity most negatively affected by the Act. Unlike other sectors, American asparagus growers were not provided a transition period before tariffs on Peruvian imports were unilaterally eliminated. Since implementation of the Andean Trade Preference Act of 1991, imports of Peruvian asparagus have increased by more than 20 times. These duty-free imports have decimated U.S. asparagus growers and closed domestic asparagus processing plants in my district. Now, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if you are not from an asparagus production area in this country, you may be thinking this trade-off is worth it because it results in less drug production. The unfortunate reality is that this Act is a failure in that regard too. The latest studies confirm that cocaine production in the Andean countries is actually higher today than when the Andean Trade Preference Act was adopted in 1991. In other words, we have exported jobs from rural America to these Andean countries and we are still seeing narcotics production going up. Nevertheless, we are here asking American farmers to sacrifice their livelihoods to perpetuate a wholly unrelated and unsuccessful anti- narcotics strategy. Mr. Speaker, I also regret that we are considering an extension of this flawed policy under a process that denies Members the opportunity to amend the bill, the text of which was not even available until a couple of hours ago. This is being rushed to the floor with no time to debate or offer amendments. The markup of this bill in Ways and Means was cancelled. The bill has not gone through the Rules Committee. The House should have an opportunity to have a full and fair debate on this Act, which has a profound negative effect on my constituents. So I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill. I will insert into the Record an article from the Seattle Times that more fully points out the dilemma that asparagus growers have suffered, and, also, I will insert into the Record an article from the New York Times regarding the plight of asparagus growers as a result of this Act. [From the Seattle Times, Jan. 2, 2007] New Hope for Asparagus Growers Washington asparagus growers might get a break in the new Democrat-controlled Congress. They sure need it. The industry has been decimated by a U.S. drug policy designed to encourage Peruvian coca-leaf growers to switch to asparagus. Passed in 1990 and since renewed, the Andean Trade Preferences and Drugs Eradication Act permits certain products from Peru and Colombia, including asparagus, to be imported to the United States tariff-free. The act was set to expire Dec. 31, but Congress approved a six-month extension to make time to negotiate a proposed free-trade agreement. We believe world markets should be more open and barriers to trade should be lowered. But this trade preferences act, when it comes to asparagus, is a one-sided deal that does only harm to the U.S. industry while failing miserably at its stated intent of reducing drug production. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy Web site currently notes that the Peruvian coca acreage, mostly in the highlands, is the highest it has been in eight years. Meanwhile, the small country has become a powerhouse in asparagus production along its Pacific Coast lowlands. Peruvian asparagus production has multiplied 18-fold. The industry has developed a vigorous market and attracted sizable capital investment. Meanwhile, the Washington industry is a shadow of its former self. Acreage has been cut by 71 percent to just 9,000 acres. In 2005, Seneca closed the world's largest cannery in Dayton, Columbia County, and shipped its state-of-the-art equipment to--no surprise--Peru. So did Del Monte, when it closed its Toppenish plant. Is it any wonder the U.S. asparagus industry hopes the preferences act will be allowed to lapse in June? That's not to say the Washington Asparagus Commission has its head in the sand over the global economy. In particular, the commission is willing to support a proposed free-trade agreement with provisions common to other free-trade agreements. The industry wants the tariff re-imposed on Peruvian asparagus but only during the U.S. growing season--roughly April through June in Washington--and then phased out over a period of years. The tariff on U.S. production would diminish also. That would be a long, overdue solution for an industry decimated by a drug-reduction policy that failed miserably.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the chairman. I appreciate very much your comments. I look forward to working with you on issues related to the implementation of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Act. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee, by a voice vote, approved an open rule for the consideration of the Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation Act. I am pleased that this rule keeps with the longstanding tradition of allowing an open debate on spending bills. I support House Resolution 514. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman's remarks. I also noted that the committee report includes $1 million for land acquisition in the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area requested by our colleagues, Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon and Mr. Baird of Washington. I would like to clarify with the chairman that it is not his intent that these funds would be spent on land acquisition in the part of the scenic area that I represent. Again, I would be happy to yield to the chairman on this question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Washington, the chairman of the subcommittee. As the chairman is aware, I have been concerned for some time with the issue of Federal land acquisition due to its effect on local tax rolls. Many of the counties that I represent are heavily federally owned. Some of them have strong reservations about Federal land acquisition. I would like to say a word or two specifically about the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. As the chairman knows, I represent the northeastern part of the scenic area. The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic River Act, passed by Congress in 1986, authorized $40 million for land acquisition, $10 million for economic development grants, and $10 million for recreation grants for the scenic area. I am concerned that even though it has been 20 years since the Act was passed, the economic development and recreation accounts have yet to be fully funded. Meanwhile, the Forest Service has spent more than $55 million on land acquisition in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. I believe we should make it a priority to fund the economic development and recreation accounts as envisioned under the Act. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to Chairman Dicks for his comments.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer). (Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee heard testimony nearly 2 weeks ago from my good friend and colleague from Washington, Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks and the Ranking Member Todd Tiahrt of Kansas. When they appeared before the Rules Committee, concerns were raised that the bill at that time did not include a list of earmarks or earmark sponsors and that no Member could challenge, discuss, and call for a vote on earmarks on the House floor. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, Republicans succeeded in forcing the Democrat majority to restore the earmark transparency and enforceability rules that they had changed at the beginning of this Congress, and now spending bills are being brought to the floor with earmarks where they can be discussed, debated, and voted upon, as they should be. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the fiscal year 2008 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill that we will consider today contains a list of earmarks and the names of the sponsors of those earmarks. This means that Members will have the opportunity to review them before casting their vote on the House floor and not just see them added months from now, as was previously tried. Mr. Speaker, the Central Washington area that I represent covers more than 19,000 square miles, much of which is controlled and managed by the Federal Government. The Federal agencies funded in this bill directly impact those that I represent on a number of levels. When storms and mudslides wipe out trails and roads, it affects not only my constituents that enjoy camping, hiking, and hunting on public roads, but also visitors to the area and the local businesses that rely on tourism. When invasive species, plant pests, and wildfire threats are not adequately controlled on Federal land, the problems do not stop at the property line. I think I speak for many Western Members of the House when I talk about the huge stake we have in the general direction of the agencies funded under this bill. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that at a time when Federal land agencies struggle to manage the land they now have, this Congress would provide tens of millions of dollars for the Federal Government to buy up more land. This takes private property off the tax rolls and leaves county governments with a heavier burden to pay for emergency services, roads, and schools. I have stood on this floor before to discuss the importance of another program, the Secure Rural Schools program, which compensates local governments that are negatively affected by Federal forest land policy and ownership and the virtual shutdown of the Federal timber program over the last 15 years. We need to get the Secure Rural Schools program reauthorized and we need to get the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program fully funded for the long term before we start spending millions of dollars adding more and more land to the Federal estate. Finally, I want to express my concern about the overall increase in spending that this bill represents. I know that the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member worked very hard to try to manage the many demands for funding under this bill. However, this bill represents a $680 million increase over last year. As I have said previously with respect to other appropriation bills this year, we simply must rein in spending in order to prevent the massive tax increases that the Democrat majority is poised to impose, as reflected in their budget. Congress must work for balancing the Federal budget in 5 years. There are two ways to balance the budget, whether it is your family budget or the Federal budget. You can either, one, reduce the amount of money being spent or, two, increase the amount coming in. This bill highlights the Democrat majority's allegiance to option number two: spending more money each and every year and at a rate faster than inflation, while relying on tax increases to balance the budget down the road. Mr. Speaker, we don't need a bigger Federal Government. We need a balanced approach that holds the line on spending; provides for our Nation's most fundamental priorities; and allows taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend, save, and invest as they see fit. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and namesake, 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, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 496) and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. And this is a truly open rule that continues the longstanding tradition of providing open rules for appropriation bills. So therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support House Resolution 481, and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from California if she has any more requests. I have no more requests for time and I'm prepared to yield back if she is.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this Congress, the Democrat majority chose to gut the earmark transparency and enforceability rules that the Republicans enacted just last year. They then decided to bring the spending bills to the floor that did not include earmarks so no Member could challenge, discuss, and call for a vote on the House floor. Fortunately, the Republicans were successful in forcing the Democrat majority to restore earmark transparency and enforceability rules and bring spending bills to the floor with earmarks where they can be discussed, debated, and voted upon. But, Mr. Speaker, let me be clear that the Fiscal Year 2008 Energy and Water appropriations bill before us today does not contain earmarks. However, Republican and Democrat leaders have reached an agreement that Members will have an opportunity to debate and vote on earmarks to be included in this bill before this bill is sent to the Senate, and I, along with my colleagues, will work to ensure that this promise is kept. Mr. Speaker, I also wish to point out that the underlying bill is of tremendous importance to the central Washington congressional district that I represent. I am pleased by the funding provided for Hanford cleanup and the efforts to ensure that the Richland Operations Office can meet legal cleanup milestones along the River Corridor and in transuranic waste retrievals. However, I must say, Mr. Speaker, the funding level for the waste treatment plant at Hanford is of a concern to me. It is important for this House and the Congress to recognize that while the bill provides sufficient funds for construction in this fiscal year, this bill's funding level will require a significant boost in funding in just 2 years to keep the project on its new independently verified budget and schedule. We must acknowledge that the choices made on funding for the waste treatment plant in this bill require balancing with a substantial increase in the very near future. I also, Mr. Speaker, support the funds vital to the operation of Pacific Northwest National Lab, particularly the DOE Office of Science and NNSA plan to transition scientists' work in the 300 area to replacement lab facilities. This initiative is critical to our country's national security. And this bill provides a solid endorsement and boost to that project. So, Mr. Speaker, when the Democrat majority keeps its promise to include earmarks and detail spending in this bill, we will know far more about the multibillion-dollar budgets of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. These are also of great importance to the irrigators, farmers and ports of Washington State and the Pacific Northwest. Originally, as we know, the Democrat majority would have had this House consider the Energy and Water appropriations bill with a report that included page after page of blanks where dollar amounts should have been in the Army Corps and Reclamation budgets. But due to the demands of the Republicans, they will now fill in the blanks before and not after the House votes and sends this bill to the Senate. This will ensure that all Members will have an opportunity to review earmarks on the House floor and not just see them added months from now when they would have been beyond the scrutiny of a House vote. We Republicans have secured a rules change to ensure this House and the American taxpayers can scrutinize earmarks, and that earmarks are subject to a vote of the House. This is the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker, and I'm pleased that the Democrat majority has agreed to Republican demands to restore transparency and openness on earmarks. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. 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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you for yielding. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the Chair as well, and look forward to working with both of you in this regard.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to point out that DHS provided approximately $2.25 million in prior years for conceptual design of this project. In addition, the FY07 Homeland Security appropriation bill provided $2 million for the continued design and initial construction of this facility. And I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his help last year. However, no funds were included in the FY08 budget request from DHS. The MOU calls for $25 million to be contributed by DHS to begin construction. If this funding is not included, the project will likely be delayed into future years, causing both DHS and DOE to lose important laboratory capabilities they need to keep our country safe.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we are very, very privileged tonight to have a guest on the floor. Little Cole Rodgers is here with his mother, Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

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 yield myself the balance of time. I just simply want to say that the gentleman from Texas, a member of the committee, was apparently told something by the subcommittee chairman and that wasn't carried out, and I think that's the point that he made. I am pleased that the committee has made these three amendments in order. They were debated, and I think the full House deserves that consideration. I think the rule could have been, obviously, better if it were an open rule on a bill here that certainly is not that controversial. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.