Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues that last Thursday, one of our former colleagues, Jack Metcalf, who represented the Second District in Washington State, passed away. So, Madam Speaker, I would ask if we could have a moment of silence in his remembrance.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from San Dimas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Resolution 219. I am disappointed that a bipartisan amendment that I offered, along with the chairman of the Ethics Committee, Chairwoman Tubbs Jones of Ohio, to the Rules Committee was not made in order under this closed rule. The amendment that we offered would simply set the funding levels for the Ethics Committee at the level that was requested by Chairwoman Tubbs Jones and by me, the amount that we jointly determined was necessary to effectively carry out the Ethics Committee's responsibilities. Regrettably, the budget we requested was not provided by the House Administration Committee. Yesterday, the Rules Committee refused to allow the House to vote on whether the Ethics Committee will have the resources it needs to fully fund its responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Committee is responsible for two primary tasks: one, educating, informing and advising members and staff about their ethical responsibilities pursuant to the House rules; and, two, enforcing those rules firmly and fairly without regard to friendship, favor, or political party. Two years ago in a bipartisan fashion, I requested a substantial increase in funding to better fulfill these responsibilities, and I was pleased that 2 years ago the House Administration Committee supported and approved the full funding that was requested. However, as the Speaker and Members know, the 110th Congress passed significant changes to the House rules that we are living under in this Congress. Those rules require, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat, require that our committee take on additional responsibilities that we haven't had in the past in areas of gift, private travel, mandatory ethics training, and public disclosure. Our budget request this year, $6.11 million, and it is the lowest of any standing committee in the House, would provide the additional staff to improve the quality of advice, authorize detailees from the Government Accountability Office to help process public disclosure office, increase ethics training for Members and staff throughout the country, and enhance the communication of the new ethics rules. Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the need to live under a tight budget. Yet the budget requested by the Ethics Committee for this Congress is not arbitrary. It is the amount of funds needed to do the work that we are asked to do by a vote of the House. Limiting the Ethics Committee budget limits the Ethics Committee's ability to do its job. I do regret that this matter has reached the House floor, and I know that the chairwoman and I seek simply to have the resources we need to serve Members of this House and to uphold the integrity of this institution. I am committed to working hand in hand with the chairwoman, and I know that she is sincerely dedicated to carrying out the committee's responsibilities. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I must ask my colleagues to join me in voting against the rule and against the previous question so that the amendment providing the Ethics Committee the necessary funding can be considered by the full House.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, when most people think of the State of Washington, they imagine a cloudy day with a good chance of rain. However, much of the eastern part of Washington that I represent is very dry and very arid. In fact, my hometown of Pasco averages only 8 inches of rain a year, which is even less than the Central Valley, where my friend from California resides. This part of the State is also noted for its irrigated agriculture, which is the foundation of our rural communities. Water is a valuable and limited resource that is critical for farmers and our agricultural economy. Two areas of my district in particular know the value and importance of water: the Yakima River Basin and the Odessa Subaquifer of the Columbia Basin. The Bureau of Reclamation is examining both areas for potential additional water storage, and I hope this Congress will continue past commitments to finding solutions that protect the farmers and the communities in these areas. I also recognize the need to develop alternative sources of usable water for drinking and for agriculture purposes. By exploring innovative approaches such as membrane-filtering technologies and aquifer storage and retrieval, we can ensure that kitchen faucets and irrigation lines won't run dry in the future. Fresh water is a scarce and valuable resource and certainly one that we cannot afford to lose. The underlying legislation continues a pilot program under the Clean Water Act that provides grants to encourage water reclamation and reuse. The bill would increase authorized funding for this program by $50 million without any fiscal-year limitation. However, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that this program has never been funded. Therefore, the real question of whether this program warrants Federal funding will be left up to the Appropriations Committee and the subcommittee in charge of water spending to decide. So I urge my colleagues to support this modified open rule, and I hope that we can continue this openness in future legislation, including the supplemental spending bill, the budget resolution, and the Water Quality Financing Act that is expected to be on the floor later this week. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I also want to congratulate the gentleman from California on the managing of his first rule in his capacity on the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, 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 yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I would just remind my friend that when that happened last year, which is acknowledged on our side, that there was a bit of outrage on your side. I am simply saying I would hope as we move forward and you ask for the same consideration as you asked last year, but say it was denied, I hope that there will be the same outrage on your side if you are denied an open process. That is all I am saying. I am looking prospective. That is all I am saying.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman, I remember, I am sure he was part of the majority that when the process was closed, there was a great deal of outrage. I would hope, I would hope that if there is a more closed process under a new majority that there would be similar outrage from the gentleman.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for bringing this National Security FIRST Act under an open rule today. As we move forward, Mr. Speaker, when we have important bills, and I am glad to hear my friend from Massachusetts say if there are controversial bills that come out of his committee, if he has anything to say, he will ask for an open process. I think that is good, and I commend him for that. I would hope as we move forward with bills regarding national security, health care and education, as they are brought to the Rules Committee and to the floor, I hope that all Members will be able to offer input and shape legislation through an open process.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Republican Conference chairman, Mr. Putnam of Florida.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts for making his remarks. For a minute I thought he was making an argument about the debate we had last week regarding the Iraq resolution where we were asking for an open debate. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, most Americans, including some Members of Congress, had never heard of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, that is, until the proposed purchase of commercial operations of six U.S. ports by the Dubai Ports World, a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates. After reviewing the way in which the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States operates, it became clear that we must revamp the process by which foreign investments are examined for any effect that they may have on national security. The House acted and passed legislation last year, but, unfortunately, differences with the Senate were not resolved. That is why we are here again today to consider the bipartisan National Security FIRST Act, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my friends on the majority for bringing to the floor a bill that mirrors legislation championed in the last Congress by Republican whip Mr. Blunt, the National Security FIRST Act, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a unanimous vote last year of 424-0. This underlying bill would for the first time establish in law the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which is currently a creation of a 1975 executive order. It would require the committee to increase its scrutiny of foreign acquisitions of U.S. assets whenever the transactions involve firms owned by foreign governments. The bill would also enhance congressional oversight of the committee by ensuring that leaders of both parties in Congress are briefed on investigative results before the committee completes its reviews of the takeover bids. Following the tragedy of September 11, 2001, protecting our homeland must be a top priority for Congress. We face no greater challenge than protecting Americans from an enemy without borders that we all know is determined to destroy our Nation by any means necessary. Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we act to revise and review the investigative process for foreign investment activities that may affect our national security. In the wake of the Dubai Ports World controversy, the current foreign investment process lacks confidence, predictability, and reliability, trademarks, I might say, of the U.S. securities markets. The underlying bill, the National Security FIRST Act, restores confidence, predictability, and reliability while continuing to encourage foreign investments and preserve the over 5 million American jobs that foreign investment supports in the United States. In my home State of Washington, Mr. Speaker, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies play a vital role in supporting jobs, employing over 83,000 Washingtonians. This bill has been carefully balanced so as not to discourage these important investments. I urge my colleagues to support this open rule, and I hope this will not be the last open rule that we have providing for consideration of legislation impacting our national security. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) 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. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today I mourningly lost not only a colleague but a very close friend. We all know that Charlie's unwavering dedication to his constituents and to our Nation inspired us who had the privilege of serving with him. He was known and was well-documented as a principled lawmaker who was absolutely committed to his values and to his work in this people's House. He was never afraid to stand up for his convictions. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on a personal note, because Charlie and I were elected in 1994, and I see several of my colleagues here that are going to speak after me. My wife Claire and his wife Gloria became friends during the orientation. And while my wife doesn't come back here as often as Gloria was here with Charlie, whenever she came back we always made it a point as often as we could to get together with the Norwoods and have dinner. Charlie loved to try a lot of different venues: He was a steak man, and we ate steak. He liked Italian food, and we found several Italian places that we ate. He took me to a Korean restaurant. He liked Korean food after being in Asia. And we had great conversations. We talked about the patients' bill of rights; we disagreed. We talked about OSHA; we agreed. And so he and Gloria became good friends of Claire and me, and he even hosted my brother and I down at the Master's one year. My older brother and Charlie shared the same birth date, so they had a bond right off the bat. If there is one legacy I think that Charlie will leave with all of us, it is the bulldoggedness and the determination with which he pursued legislation. But if there is one other legacy that will be left, it is the way he displayed the courage to fight this disease that he had. And I truly think, Mr. Speaker, that any lesser man would not have lasted as long as he did with the disease that he had. Charlie will be very, very much missed, and our prayers go out to Gloria and the family.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 157 and the underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is engaged in a Global War on Terror, a war that we did not seek, but a war that was brought to our shores on September 11, 2001. Today, we fight an enemy without borders that is determined to destroy our Nation by any means necessary. An al Qaeda leader said that they have the right to ``kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children, and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple thousands.'' The President of Iran has called a world without America and Israel ``possible and feasible.'' It is also undeniable that Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. But you don't have to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. The terrorists themselves have told us it is so. Al Qaeda's deputy leader has repeatedly said that Afghanistan and Iraq are the ``two most crucial fields'' in the Islamists' war. In a letter he said that expelling Americans from Iraq is the first step in expanding the jihad wave. If this, Mr. Speaker, is what the terrorists are telling us, why should we not believe them? As much as I wish that our troops were home, I recognize that arbitrary pulling out of Iraq would provide a sanctuary for terrorists and have serious consequences for our U.S. security. A self-sustaining government there is critical to our security here. I share the frustration of all Americans who had hoped that the Iraqis would be protecting and governing themselves by now, but that simply is not the reality. Previous strategies to stabilize Iraq have not succeeded and things cannot continue as they have been. In order to succeed, Iraqis must step up and take responsibility for their own security. And under the new strategy, Mr. Speaker, announced last month, they will be held more accountable in the future. Some say this new strategy is wrong; yet they fail to say what is right. They call for an arbitrary pullout yet have not answered the question ``what then?'' They seek to cut off funding for our troops yet offer no plan for fighting terrorists. Mr. Speaker, there is no easy answer. But simply declaring that we don't wish to be at war anymore does not make our enemies surrender. Withholding military personnel, failing to provide funds for our troops, or pulling out of Iraq with no plan to win the war on terror are simply not options. The consequence of failure is simply too dire. If we are defeated, Iraq will become a haven that our enemies will use to launch attacks against us. The Middle East will remain destabilized. Terrorists will fight us on our soil. And it will send a dangerous signal to countries like Iran, North Korea, and Syria, and embolden terrorists around the world. The Baker-Hamilton Commission warned specifically against a precipitous withdrawal. They said: ``The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory.'' So our challenge, Mr. Speaker, is to insist on victory and not accept defeat. So, accordingly, I will not vote to deny our troops the support they need to protect themselves and America. The nonbinding resolution before us today is contradictory on supporting the troops. On the first page it says we will continue to support the troops in Iraq, but on the next page it expresses opposition to sending reinforcements that our military says are needed to support our troops currently on the ground. Mr. Speaker, how can you support the troops but not the mission? Let me say again that I will not vote to deny our troops the support they need to protect themselves and America. What I would vote for, if given the opportunity, is a plan that would have the force of law, that would set benchmarks to measure progress, that would ensure that funding for our troops is not cut off, and that would keep Congress fully apprised so that they can make informed decisions. In closing, I would just say that we must not forget the sacrifice that our troops are making. They are fighting the enemy abroad so that we will not have to fight them here. The bottom line is that this is about America and our security and a set of enemies who have said again and again that their goal is to destroy us. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. When President Clinton, to his credit, tried to come up with a forest plan, the current level at that time of timber harvest was 4\1/2\ billion board-feet, and the promise was that you could at least harvest 1.1 billion, 25 percent of it. We are not even close to that. We are not even close to that because the interpretation of that law and the ensuing lawsuits have kept any activity in these multipurpose areas. And I should make this point: This is national forestland. National forests were created to be multipurpose, including commercial activity. If you want to lock it up and not have any activity at all, the way to do that is put it in a wilderness area. This is not wilderness. Some de facto policies, unfortunately, in the past have led to sometimes this being treated as wilderness areas but it is not. So as a result of this, as a result of the timber receipts going down, these counties who relied on the Federal receipts from timber because they couldn't tax land now are facing huge, huge cuts. Chelan County in my district, one of the counties that has 80 percent ownership by the Federal Government, will have severe cuts in education, road maintenance, search and rescue, and this is a big tourist area up there, and the forestry education programs. Skamania County, a small county in the southern part of my district, loses 40 percent of its school budget. Forty percent of its school budget. And here we are and that 40 percent starts at the end of last year and they have to get through the end of the year. So this is something that needs to be resolved, and I really appreciate your allowing me to come down to participate in this. Both of you have been really champions on getting this through. And, hopefully, we will be successful sooner rather than later, because these counties and these communities in our States simply can't wait. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues here this evening to urge this Congress to take action now and extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, commonly referred to as the county payments bill. This bill is an essential lifeline of support for rural communities throughout the country that are impacted by federal forest land ownership. I thank my colleagues, Greg Walden and Peter DeFazio, for their steadfast efforts to address this problem. What we are talking about here tonight is keeping a promise--a promise made to county governments a century ago in what was then still the early years of the National Forest system. County governments, of course, cannot tax the Federal Government. However, they still must provide for schools, roads, and emergency services. The Congress recognized this reality when it promised these communities that they would get a fair share of revenue produced from federal forest lands as compensation for the tax exempt status of federal forest lands. This revenue sharing, which Congress made permanent in 1908, served all parties well and was for many years an equitable solution to the problem. Unfortunately, since the early 90s, special interest groups that oppose federal timber sales have used the Endangered Species Act to bring harvest activities in the Pacific Northwest to a standstill. The Clinton administration attempted to resolve the crisis by brokering the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994, which called for setting aside 80 percent of the federal forests in the Northwest and allowing for a modest level of continued harvest on some of what remained. This was supposed to produce a steady and reliable level of timber to help meet the growing U.S. demand for building materials and wood products. However, even this compromise was not good enough for the radical environmentalists that have continuously used litigation to sharply limit federal harvest levels. What resulted is the closure of hundreds of mills throughout the Northwest--leaving thousands of people without family wage jobs and many counties with little or no compensation for the impact of federal land ownership. Today, we import more wood products than we ever did before, and the spotted owl--which was supposedly what all the litigation was about--isn't any closer to recovery as a result of our de facto zero harvest policy. Fortunately, the Congress at least recognized the dramatic impact to local governments caused by the sharply declining Forest Service timber receipts. This is why we passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act in 2000. This law, which expired at the end of Fiscal Year 2006, enabled local governments to either remain with the traditional receipt sharing system or take a payment based on historical harvest levels. In addition, it authorized funding for local governments to work in cooperation with interested stakeholders to carry out special forest restoration projects. These payments made the difference for many county governments that would otherwise not be able to provide essential services. Today, however, the future of these payments is in doubt. Despite the many efforts on both sides of the aisle, we were unable to secure an extension of this bill before the 109th Congress adjourned. I am proud of the fact that the House did at least identify and act upon a couple of legislative items last year that would have helped offset the cost of the reauthorization. However, the situation remains that we need to find a way to get the county payments extension through the Congress and on to the President. Time is quickly running out for these rural communities. Let me give you examples of what will happen to two of my counties if we fail to act now. Chelan County, which is almost 80 percent federally-owned land, will face severe cuts in education, road maintenance, search and rescue operations and many other county services. In addition, they would be forced to eliminate the Forestry Education Program, which takes ``at risk kids'' from several local rural school districts and involves them in hands on habitat restoration projects during the summer. This program is administered with the help of Washington State University and local employees of state and federal agencies and has been recognized by the National Association of County Officials. In Skamania County, which is more than 80 percent tax exempt federal land, the local school districts will lose 40 percent of their current budget. That means the loss of dozens of teachers and support positions, the shuttering of school buildings, and dramatic cutbacks in classes and extracurricular offerings. The county government would be forced to cut more than half of their law enforcement personnel, road workers, and court employees. These people will likely have to leave the county to find alternate employment, taking their families with them and further eroding the county's economy. Mr. Speaker, these are just a couple of examples of the kinds of the consequences to real communities if we fail to act. I again urge the leadership of the Congress to move the extension of the county payments bill on the next available legislative vehicle. Let's keep our promise to these local governments and reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act before it's too late.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I want to thank you and I want to thank Mr. DeFazio, both, for your work on this not only in this Congress, but your yeomen's work at the end of the last Congress to try to get this problem resolved. And I apologize for coming down late. I wanted to participate more fully, but the Rules Committee is meeting, as we are speaking, on the Iraq issue. So I was up there and didn't have a chance to come down. But let me make a couple of points here. This really is about keeping a commitment that was made by the Federal Government to the counties. And you just made the point there that States with counties in the western part of the United States have a lot of Federal ownership. I have two counties that I just want to talk about in my district where over 80 percent of their land is owned by the Federal Government. Now, by definition that means that 80 percent of the taxable land that the county commission would have is not subject to taxation. The decision was made over 100 years ago for these national forestlands, which is principally in my area. I know you have some development lands in yours. But since they don't have taxation, they said okay. Deals were worked out many years ago that you can have the revenue from harvesting the timber, which worked out very, very well. So that is the Federal policy that was made. The Federal Government owns the land in these counties; so, therefore, they can't tax it. It is Federal policy. In the early 1990s, another Federal policy or interpretation, I should probably say, of a Federal policy has led to a decline in timber receipts, as you can see here by the chart.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 386 is a pretty straightforward bill. This legislation would authorize the transfer of about 9 acres of Federal property along with a few associated structures from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District in central Washington. The irrigation district has fully repaid its obligations to the Federal Government related to these properties and now simply pays the bureau for their operation and maintenance. This conveyance would enable the irrigation district to make needed improvements, while allowing the bureau to focus its limited resources where they are more urgently needed. This legislation is based on a formula agreement negotiated between the bureau and the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District in 2004. I commend the irrigation district and the staff of the bureau for working together at the local level to resolve the concerns of the parties involved. Mr. Speaker, this same legislation passed unanimously during the previous Congress, but didn't get through during the final parts of the session. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill again today so that we may move it on to the other body. I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young of the Natural Resources Committee and their staff for their assistance in expediting this bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can insert Mr. Sessions and Mr. Walden's amendment that was rejected in the committee. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record at the appropriate place the amendment that I will be asking my Members to consider if we defeat the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)