Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you for your honest response on that. Madam Speaker, I make the point that this, therefore, is not an open rule as was presented by my friend in his remarks. This is a structured rule, and what has happened is very simply that Members not on the committee are not given the opportunity to try to improve this bill. With that, I oppose the rule. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, we have had a discussion on the structure of this rule, and I just want to ask this question of my friend from Vermont, and I will be more than happy to yield to him. This bill will be debated on the floor later on this afternoon. Is it possible under this rule for any Member, Democratic or Republican Member, to come down and offer an amendment on this bill?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will simply say that a requirement of an open rule is not necessarily to have amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. The committee of jurisdiction is the one that marks it up and they take a lot of give-and-take within the committee. That is how we break this down, we break this whole cumbersome process down so committees can work in specific ways. It is after that process, when it goes to the floor, that Members should have an opportunity to submit whatever they wish. And there is no requirement, never has there been a requirement on something like that where they have to go to the Rules Committee and essentially ask permission to offer an amendment on the floor. So with this rule, contrary to the promises your party made going into the election, this is a closed process. Only two amendments are made in order. So Members are denied an opportunity to offer their thoughts on the floor.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman stated that in his mind this is an open rule. An open rule historically in this body has been where the committee of jurisdiction marks up the bill, takes it to the committee, and then the Rules Committee, with no restrictions, allows Members that are not on that committee to come down if they wish and submit their thoughts or improvements to the bill. The bill we are about to vote on is a structured rule. Only two amendments were offered. Actually three, and one was withdrawn. Two amendments were made in order. Those amendments were sponsored by the chairman of the committee that has primary jurisdiction on this and the sponsor of the bill, to which it has strong bipartisan support because, as I mentioned in my remarks, this mirrors a bill passed out of the Science Committee last year. This bill very easily could have been amended in the committee by the chairman, because he is the one who wanted to have the amendments, and it could have been on the Suspension Calendar. It would have passed with strong bipartisan support. So with due respect to my friend from Vermont, this is not an open rule. This is a structured rule where Members are denied the opportunity if they wish to come to the floor of the House and offer amendments or improvements to this bill.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and granted a structured rule for consideration of the bill 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act. Only two amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee and both were offered by the underlying bill's lead sponsor and the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, Mr. Gordon. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed the Democrat majority rejected, on a party-line vote, an open rule for consideration of this measure, thus denying Members of the House of Representatives the opportunity to come to the floor and offer his or her amendments to this bill. And I frankly view this as another opportunity of the promises made by the new majority that were wasted with this bill. However, the underlying bill mirrors the Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act, which was approved by the House Science Committee unanimously in the last Congress. The underlying legislation aims to increase K-12 science, technology, engineering and mathematics or ``STEM'' teachers annually by 10,000. Specifically, the bill authorizes competitive awards through the National Science Foundation to institutions of higher education to improve the training of STEM teachers and provide scholarships to students in STEM fields who commit to teaching after graduation. I applaud the Science and Technology Committee for working in a bipartisan manner to help address the need for America to be more globally competitive in math, science, technology and engineering fields by focusing on increasing the number of quality math and science teachers in our Nation's classrooms. Our students and educators certainly stand to benefit from this bipartisan bill which I support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) 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 withdraw my objection.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. So it takes that provision that violates the PAYGO from the bill?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would just yield to my friend from California for an explanation on this.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in the 107th, 108th, and the 109th Congresses, the House considered and passed legislation to provide for conservation and development of water and related resources, and to authorize the construction of various projects in order to improve rivers and harbors in the United States. Unfortunately, differences could not be resolved with the other body, and these bipartisan bills, therefore, did not become law. The legislation before us today mirrors legislation that was approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the House in the last Congress, and I am confident it will enjoy large bipartisan support today. Mr. Speaker, 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 my area in the Pacific Northwest. Our region's major river, the Columbia River and its tributaries, 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 transportation 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 careful attention. The success of farmers and manufacturers throughout the Pacific Northwest depend on these ports being navigable and appropriately maintained. Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions in the Water Resources Development Act that are important to individuals and communities that I represent in central Washington, and I would like to highlight those provisions. Like the WRDA bill passed by the House in the last Congress, I am particularly pleased that the committee has included language in the manager's amendment to permit Corps of Engineer employees working at dams in the Pacific Northwest to participate in wage surveys that are conducted to determine their rate of pay. This important provision would 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 is a matter of fair and equal treatment, and I appreciate the committee agreeing with my request on this matter. This bill also includes language that would allow the Corps to officially give credit to the Port of Sunnyside 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 river habitat in the Yakima River, and provide for greater economic growth in the local community. This provision ensures that the Port of Sunnyside gets proper credit for funds it invested 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 elimination of these flowage easements will allow beneficial uses of this prime riverfront property to move forward for the betterment of Pasco and the Tri-Cities. Mr. Speaker, we must keep our commitment to sustain and enhance our Nation's water resource infrastructure, and that requires a regular review and updating of congressional direction to the Corps of Engineers to ensure that existing projects are maintained and that new needs are met. I am hopeful that this necessary legislation will soon become law. 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 would like to take this opportunity to recognize one of the true leaders of the national science community, Dr. Leonard K. Peters. Dr. Peters came to Washington state in 2003 to assume the role of Director of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. During his tenure, the Lab oversaw an impressive growth in business and Len led the world-class PNNL staff to enhance relationships with research universities in the Pacific Northwest. Len has a long history of establishing successful public-private relationships in the science and education sectors. Dr. Peters came to PNNL from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University where he served as Vice Provost for Research and managed Virginia Tech's ambitious research portfolio with diverse projects ranging from biotechnology to transportation materials. Prior to his time at Virginia Tech, Dr. Peters spent almost twenty years at the University of Kentucky where he served as a professor and eventually as acting Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies. Dr. Peters is a distinguished manager and educator and an accomplished researcher in atmospheric chemistry. As Dr. Peters assumes a new role at Battelle, he will continue to lead and serve in the Tri-Cities area through community outreach programs. He is already actively involved in the region's educational community through his service on the Advisory Board for Washington State University's College of Engineering and Architecture, and the Board of Directors for Heritage University. Locally Dr. Peters chairs the Tri-City Industrial Development Council and serves on the boards of Kadlec Medical Center, the United Way of Benton and Franklin Counties, and Junior Achievement of the Greater Tri-Cities. Dr. Peters is a committed leader who shares his tremendous experience and talent with the Washington state community. I want to recognize Dr. Len Peters for his leadership and vision during the past 3\1/2\ years at PNNL. On behalf of the people of Washington, I wish him all the best in his new position and say thank you for his continued service to our State.

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, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the bill that this rule makes in order is a good bill. It passed the Armed Services Committee unanimously. It is something that is needed now that we need are engaged in this war on terror. Bills like this, in my view, deserve an open rule, so that you can give the opportunity for Members on both sides of the aisle to try to improve this good product and make it better. I cited two examples for the Rules Committee to not make in order two bills that dealt specifically with our veterans in rural areas. While I support the underlying bill, I am opposed to the rule, because I think the rule could have allowed more amendments to have been in order or, for that matter, have made this an open rule. I think that ought to be the standard when we have strong bipartisan support for legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform routinely risk their lives to protect ours. Along with their families, they make many sacrifices in service to America. There is no question that they deserve the very best care that our Nation can provide. The situation at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center was unacceptable to all Americans, and I am encouraged that immediate steps have been taken to address the problems there. But it is just as important to take action to prevent similar problems from happening at any of our military health facilities. Under Republican leadership, Mr. Speaker, recent Congresses have increased spending per veteran, expanded the concurrent receipt, written budgets that nearly doubled funding for veterans health care, and enhanced benefits for those returning from the war on terror. Now, Congress is taking another step forward, and a proper step forward, in improving services for both our active military and our veterans. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill before us today makes commonsense improvements to ensure that our military men and women have access to the care that they have earned and to help maintain excellence throughout our military health system. For example, this legislation creates a new toll-free hotline for reporting deficiencies at military health care facilities, calls for a study to identify infrastructure needs, and authorizes funding to support wounded warriors and their families. It assigns a medical case manager and a patient advocate to each servicemember receiving outpatient care and makes sure that these professionals are properly trained. The process currently used to determine if a soldier can return to active duty is improved so that wounded servicemembers are afforded an opportunity to have input into the decision on whether they should retire from the service. Provisions are included to provide those separating or retiring from service with a seamless transition into the VA system, and the number of doctors at VA hospital facilities is increased. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to talk about military and VA health care systems without mentioning the unique challenges faced by veterans in rural areas. My district in central Washington has one of the highest concentrations of rural veterans in the Northwest. Although I am working with the VA to get a new outpatient clinic up and running in the northern part of my district, access to health care remains an issue of concern for me and my constituents who all too often are forced to drive hours and sometimes wait months to even get the most basic care. So, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly disappointed that an amendment offered by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico was rejected last night in the Rules Committee and will not be allowed to be considered on the floor today. We are missing an opportunity to make a good bill even better by improving care for our rural veterans. The Pearce amendment is based on a bill that I have cosponsored that would enable the VA to partner with existing hospitals and local communities on a case-by-case basis so that veterans in many rural areas can be cared for closer to home. This to me, Mr. Speaker, is a commonsense approach to get top-notch care to veterans without delay. I am at a loss to understand why anyone would oppose this improvement to caring for our veterans. Similarly, Mr. Moran of Kansas had an amendment that I also support; and, unfortunately, it, too, was rejected by Democrats on the Rules Committee. Our support for improving veterans health care should not be a partisan issue. I am pleased that both Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services Committee have made the underlying bill, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act, a priority and that the committee approved it by unanimous vote. So, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes; and, Mr. Speaker, 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. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding. Madam Speaker, there are two ways to balance a 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 of money coming in. Madam Speaker, the Democrats have flat-out rejected option number one of spending less and declared their allegiance to option number two of raising taxes; and they have done both with a fervor that our country has never seen before. The Democrat 5-year budget plan would spend more money each and every year and at a rate faster than the inflation rate. This means that each year the size of the Federal Government will grow bigger and more rapidly than the American economy. To pay for the record levels of spending in their budget, the Democrats plan to raise taxes on the American people more than at any other time in our country's history. That is right, raising spending to record levels and to pay for it with the largest tax increase in American history. This budget does not extend tax relief from the marriage tax penalty. It doesn't extend the $1,000 child tax credit that many young families use. It doesn't end the death tax. It doesn't fix the alternative minimum tax for middle-class families. It doesn't protect the lowest tax rate, and would again impose taxes on lower income Americans who right now pay no taxes, thanks to the 2001 tax relief law passed by the Republican Congress. This tax relief should not be repealed or allowed to expire to pay for more government spending. This tax relief that was passed in 2001 and 2003 should remain permanent for the American people. Madam Speaker, on important priorities for my State, like the extention of the State and local sales tax deduction from the Federal tax and county payments for rural schools, the Democrat budget falls short. It offers only promises, but no real action. The Republican plan, on the other hand, sets aside real dollars to extend the State and local sales tax deduction for another year. So I encourage all Members who believe in sales tax fairness to think carefully about this when casting their vote. On the issue of payment to rural schools in counties with Federal forests, this budget allows an extension, but it takes no real steps to make it happen. As I have said before on this issue, I am disappointed that the Democratic leadership denied the opportunity to attach an extension of this legislation to another bill, a bill that has, in fact, been signed into law. Madam Speaker, the Republican plan I will be supporting holds the line on spending, sets priorities and allows taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned money and invest it as they see fit, not how the Federal Government sees fit. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the budget resolution offered by the Democrat majority and support the substitute offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, since the war on terror began, the Rules Committee has granted an open rule for every wartime supplemental spending bill brought to the floor, thus giving every Member an opportunity to offer an amendment and have their say on those supplemental bills. In the Rules Committee last night, we heard passionate testimony from several Members on both sides of the aisle. Some Members spoke about the need to continuing funding our troops to complete our mission, while others offered hard deadlines for withdrawal, regardless of consequence. In the end, over 50 amendments were offered to the Rules Committee to be made in order for consideration on the House floor today. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, not one single amendment, let me repeat that, not one of the 50 amendments will be allowed to be considered by the full House. And, Mr. Speaker, I am truly disappointed with that. The bill we have before us today contains restrictions on funding and conditions on what our troops are able to do that are simply, to me, unacceptable. We have military leaders for a reason. Making 435 Members of Congress commanders in the field is a formula for failure, which I am deeply concerned will have a long-term consequence on our security here at home. By placing restrictions on funds, hamstringing our military and calling for an arbitrary withdrawal, this bill will jeopardize the ability of our troops to do their jobs to defend America. A wartime spending bill, Mr. Speaker, should have, above all else, to provide the support that our men and women in uniform need to accomplish their mission. By placing conditions on funding, this bill fails to do that. Conditions on funding make it impossible for our military leaders and our troops on the ground to respond to ever- changing conditions on the battlefield. And finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill has more than just military funding. And I am disappointed now that it is only now, in an effort to attract votes for a bad bill that we know will never be signed into law, the Democrat leadership has decided to include in this bill an extension of rural county payments. I tried earlier this year to attach an extension to another bill. That bill became law. I also tried to have a long-term extension brought up on a vote, but the Democrat leadership said no, time and time again. Allowing the extension to come to the floor only on a bill that we know will be vetoed amounts to nothing more than false promises. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight, along with my colleagues from Washington State, to pay homage to our friend and colleague who passed away last Thursday, Jack Metcalf. Jack Metcalf represented the Second District of Washington from 1995 to 2001, and I have known Jack personally since 1968. I first met Jack when he first ran for the U.S. Senate. I was contacted by some people, and they said that he was coming into town and asked if I would meet with him, which I did, he ended up spending the night at my house and slept on the couch. I only say that from background because that was typical of Jack. He was totally unpretentious. In fact, his history, electoral history, as a representative of northwest Washington goes back for many years. He first ran for office in 1958, unsuccessfully, I might add. Two years later he ran and was elected to the State legislature and served there for two terms and left. Then he got elected as State senator and served for 8 more years as a State senator, and left to run for the U.S. Senate again, and got beat and then came back and served as a State senator for 12 more years. He left that time to run again unsuccessfully for the U.S. House. But he was successful when he ran in 1994. I point that out because that was four times that he ran for office in an endeavor to serve his constituents of northwest Washington. And it never bothered him, at least he never said it to me, that he was unsuccessful in the past. In fact, after he had lost in 1992 and was contemplating running in 1994, he was approached by the then Republican Central Committee chairman and suggested that maybe Jack ought not run because he was 68. And Jack replied to him, ``Well, I think I can win.'' And I can just hear Jack say that because that was so typical of him. He was totally unpretentious. So I am here simply to say that he was a friend for many, many years. He was somebody that served his constituents well, and he was somebody, I think, that was really very, very true to his beliefs. And I think that is an asset that a lot of people probably don't have, but certainly Jack did. And I am very, very proud to have called him a friend for all these years. And I can say that our thoughts and prayers are with Norma and his family, and he will be greatly missed. With that I would like to yield to the individual that succeeded him in the Second District, my friend from Washington (Mr. Larsen).