Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 contains provisions that are important to our troops serving abroad, to our national security and to my constituents in central Washington. It authorizes more funding for force protection, including over $4 billion for vehicles designed to protect our troops from improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, in Iraq. This legislation includes the Wounded Warrior Act, which passed the House earlier this year, that would help address the challenges that face our recovering servicemembers and families. This bill also extends the language enacted last year to prevent TRICARE copay increases. In addition to providing the authorization levels that our servicemembers need, I am pleased that the language was included that emphasizes congressional support for the National Nuclear Security Administration's role in the 300 Area transition at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in my district and specifically at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department of Energy Office of Science and the Department of Homeland Security all signed a memorandum of understanding last year agreeing to funding commitments for this very important transition. The committee has been helpful on this issue in the past, and I appreciate its continued support in Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's 300 Area transition. A successful transition at the lab will make it possible for nearly 1,000 scientists to continue their work and allow key national security related missions to continue. Another issue that is an issue of great importance is the ongoing cleanup of the Department of Energy's Hanford nuclear site, which is a legacy going back to World War II. I am pleased this committee, like in recent years, has supported my request to authorize the full $690 million needed for the waste treatment plant next year. Construction of the waste treatment plan is a critical effort to clean up some of our Nation's most dangerous legacy nuclear waste. I am pleased this legislation recognizes the importance of this project. In addition to authorizing the funding needed for cleanup at Hanford, I am pleased that we are working to address the concerns of Department of Energy nuclear site workers who suffered health effects from their work at government sites. This bill includes language similar to a bill I recently cosponsored that extends and increases the scope of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Ombudsman's Office so that it is still better to assist workers seeking compensation. The Ombudsman's Office assists workers who have filed for compensation under this compensation program. These workers, Madam Speaker, played a vital role in our Nation's defense during the hot war and the Cold War. If it is found that their illness has been caused by their work, they deserve just and prompt compensation. I am also pleased that funding is authorized to upgrade and expand the training range at the Yakima Training Center in my district. $29 million will be used to increase the size of the training space, allow for urban operation training, and support the digital systems used by today's Stryker forces. The new range is expected to be completed by August 2009, and will provide critical training for our active duty and Reserve Army soldiers. Madam Speaker, while H.R. 1585 is a good bill, it is not a perfect bill. This bill cuts nearly $800 million in funding for a robust, layered ballistic missile defense system capable of intercepting missiles at all stages of flight. Despite recent missile tests in North Korea and the intelligence community's belief that within the next decade Iran will have missiles capable of reaching the United States, the Democrat majority of the House Armed Services Committee rejected a proposal to restore more than $764 million to the Missile Defense Agency's budget. I don't believe now is the time to slow down the development of a strong missile defense system. As ballistic missile threats increase, we must be able to develop the capabilities necessary to protect ourselves. This bill also cuts $867 million from the Army's modernization program, the Future Combat Systems, which helps keep our Armed Forces prepared for future combat scenarios. It is important to find new technologies to optimize information flow and combat systems in the future, but the severe cuts in this bill puts the modernization of the Army in jeopardy. This 1-year cut is greater than cuts in the last 3 years combined. Congressman Todd Akin from Missouri, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, put forward an amendment to the Rules Committee last night to restore $134 million for Future Combat Systems. But sadly, his amendment was rejected on a party-line vote by the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee. Madam Speaker, a total of 135 amendments were allowed to be submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration, and this rule allows for consideration of 50 amendments on the floor today. I am deeply troubled that for the first time, the first time during my tenure in Congress and tenure on the Rules Committee, Members of Congress reported that they were actually prohibited, prohibited from submitting an amendment to the committee after the deadline. Specifically, Congressman Akin from Missouri and Congressman Gingrey from Georgia attempted to offer second-degree amendments to an amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) concerning the morning-after pill. These types of amendments by definition cannot be drafted until the text of the original amendment has been seen, and therefore, it was after the announced amendment deadline that each of those two Members, Akin and Gingrey, attempted to submit their amendments. But the submission, the submission itself was denied by the Democrat majority. While amendments to amendments are not the norm of the House, Members certainly have had the ability to offer such amendments to the Rules Committee, or at least they did, Madam Speaker, until this week. So let me be clear. The Democrat leadership actually denied Members of Congress the opportunity to have their amendments presented and then denied by the committee because typically amendments that are offered late are denied. But they didn't even have the opportunity to submit them late. All Members of Congress are elected to this body and they have the duty to represent their constituents through the legislative process. The manner in which these Members of Congress were treated was unnecessary. Madam Speaker, I certainly hope it never happens again. I am also disappointed that the Democrat majority has chosen to go out of its way to be inconsistent and change the rules and definitions, leaving Members of Congress questioning what rules and norms they should follow. Democrats on the Rules Committee have chosen to strictly enforce the amendment deadline on some occasions, but on others they have made amendments in order that were submitted past the deadline. They have changed the definition of rules, and for the first time in at least a decade they have outright rejected Members of Congress from submitting amendments to the Rules Committee for consideration. Last year, the Speaker and Members of the current majority pledged that this Congress would be the most open Congress in history. However, on several occasions now the Rules Committee has literally closed the door on Members and denied them the opportunity to submit an amendment to the committee. Madam Speaker, I remain optimistic. I tend to have that in my nature. But so far, I must say the new Democrat majority, so far their actions have spoken much, much louder than their words. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) 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 am going to once again urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so the House can consider the amendment that I submitted from Heather Wilson of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Let me say, then, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we will have an opportunity to vote on the merits of this amendment. 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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can amend this rule to allow the House to consider an amendment offered by Representative Heather Wilson of New Mexico and provide the appropriate waivers for that amendment. The Wilson amendment would modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to enhance the ability of our Nation to protect itself in times of war and elevated national security threats. And I think that point was made very, very eloquently by the gentlewoman from New Mexico. Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and rejected on a party-line vote the Wilson amendment. Mr. Speaker, I want to advise my friend from Florida that I just got a request for time here, and that is being discussed right now, that I was not aware of. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico, a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mrs. Wilson. (Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule. The Intelligence Authorization Act generally receives strong bipartisan support. But let me be clear that the underlying bill does contain bipartisan provisions that are important to protecting our national security, make no bones about that. However, the bill also contains a number of provisions that are of concern and could weaken our national security and intelligence capabilities by providing less than adequate resources and placing restrictions on our intelligence operations. I am concerned that the Democratic leadership chose to include section 407 in the underlying bill. My friend from Florida talked at length about that provision, which would require our Nation's intelligence community to direct its limited resources to a National Intelligence Estimate on global climate change. I have to ask, what message are we sending to our allies and our enemies when Congress instructs our intelligence experts to stop what they are doing on issues that threaten American lives and, instead, focus on theoretical risks from global warming. Furthermore, earlier this year, this House created a new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to focus on the risks of global warming. This is in addition to several Federal agencies that are already analyzing climate change. Congress should let this panel that was created, and existing Federal agencies, focus on climate change so that our intelligence analysts can focus on materials of classified information and work to prevent threats against American lives. But I am pleased, I have to say, with the Rules Committee last night because they made in order an amendment to be offered by the ranking member, Mr. Hoekstra, of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that will strike section 407 and allow our spies to be spies. I think we can have a very good debate on that. I think we ought to have that debate. I am pleased that the Rules Committee made that amendment in order. However, the Democratic leadership did deny several thoughtful amendments offered by Mr. Castle, Mr. Flake, Mr. Rogers of Michigan and Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico. I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule, which only allows 10 out of 433 Members of the House to offer their ideas on how to better strengthen our intelligence community. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the ranking member from New York.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, to report on a plan for fulfilling its infrastructure commitments at our national laboratories. I want to thank my two Washington State colleagues, Mr. Norman Dicks and Mr. Dave Reichert, a member of the committee, for their co- sponsorship of this amendment. This amendment ensures that national laboratory infrastructure changes will not interrupt security programs needed by DHS. When DHS was established, it inherited facilities around the Nation and from other agencies, some of which were aging and in need of repair. These capital facilities include critical components involving radiological and nuclear countermeasures, threat vulnerabilities and threat assessments, as well as work on biological and chemical countermeasures. In order for DHS to carry out its mission to protect our Nation, it is critical that the Department have the facilities that it needs. At the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL, in Washington State, critical DHS research and development will be transferred to new facilities as existing labs are torn down for environmental cleanup activities at the 300 Area of the Hanford Federal nuclear site in my district. In 2006, the DHS Under Secretary for Science and Technology signed an MOU with the Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration that established funding commitments for the agencies involved in the transition of PNNL's facilities from the 300 Area to new lab space. This MOU underscores DHS's critical role in making sure national security related work at PNNL will not be interrupted by this transition. This amendment I have introduced is not only important to the State of Washington and my constituents but also to our overall national security. I understand that this has been accepted on both sides, and I want to thank Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for agreeing to agree with that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate my friend for yielding. First of all, if there is a preprinting requirement, that means that once that deadline is done and debate starts on the floor, no one can come down and amend the rule. Therefore, it's a closed rule. Secondly, I can't say for certain, but the exchange that we had down here, a very good exchange, may have brought forward some idea by a Member wanting to come down and at least discuss an amendment. We don't have that opportunity. That is simply the point that I am making. This is a closed rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I have no more requests for time, so I'll close. Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest that the exchange that we have had here back and forth between the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Florida begs to a process that should be much more open. Clearly there are some issues that were raised. My friend from Connecticut talked about the process and the fact that this may be bypassing the process. Maybe an open process would have allowed us to pursue that, but we don't have that opportunity. We have a closed rule dealing only with six tribes. I think that is significant. So, Mr. Speaker, as a majority member of the House Rules Committee in the last Congress, I just want to point out that nearly 16 percent of the rules by that committee in the last Congress were open rules and 84 percent were restrictive or closed. Thus far in this Congress, the 110th Congress, only 2.5 percent of the rules brought forth by the new Democrat majority on the Rules Committee have been open, while a staggering 97.5 percent have been restricted or closed. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the trend we see before us today with yet another closed rule denying Members an opportunity to try to improve legislation does not continue for much longer. However, I must comment that I am more disbelieving with each restrictive and closed rule brought to the floor. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Virginia laying out his remarks on this and his arguments on this, but it seems to me if there is this much work done with it, we certainly should have an open process because of all the compromises made, rather than a closed process. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule. This closed rule provides for consideration of a bill to Federally recognize six new Indian tribes in the State of Virginia. This bill marks the first time in over 20 years that the House of Representatives has considered legislation to extend Federal recognition to a tribe. While I will acknowledge Congress can grant Federal recognition to individual tribes, the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs has the administrative process by which a group may establish itself as an Indian tribe and become eligible for services and benefits extended to other tribes under Federal law. While each of these six tribes have separately submitted a petition for recognition to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, none of the petitions are complete. Rather than wait for these petitions to go through the administrative process, the Democrat majority has decided to bring this legislation to the floor under a completely closed rule, which allows no input or improvements to be made to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, despite commitments made by the Democrats for a new era of openness, the Rules Committee has only approved one truly open rule that allowed Members of Congress to come to the floor and offer amendments during consideration of a bill. House Resolution 377 is the 18th closed rule brought forth by the Democrat majority, which means that this is the 18th time the Democrat majority has shut Members of Congress out of the deliberative process. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida and namesake, Mr. Hastings, 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.)