Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, an individual that has worked extremely hard on this legislation along with the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and deserves a great amount of credit for bringing this legislation forward. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I want to congratulate him on the work that he has done on free trade issues in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill, to implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement. This agreement is especially important for my State of Washington, which is one of the most trade-dependent States in the Nation. Mr. Speaker, we live in a global economy. And while 80 percent of Central American and Dominican Republic products enter the United States duty free, American exports face tariffs of 33 to 100 percent or higher in these countries; this is simply not a level playing field. By approving CAFTA-DR, tariffs on American exports will be drastically reduced or eliminated. In fact, under CAFTA-DR, 80 percent of U.S. exports will become duty free immediately and the remaining tariffs will be phased out over 10 years. Mr. Speaker, more than half of current U.S. farm exports to Central America and the Dominican Republic will gain immediately duty-free access, including beef, wheat, wine, fruits, and vegetables. In particular, the agreement includes a provision I worked for that would grant central Washington's apple, pear, and cherry growers immediate duty-free access to Central American and to Dominican Republic markets. These tariffs currently range from 14 to 25 percent. And our fruit growers' major competitor in the region, Chile, which has already signed a trade treatment with CAFTA countries, is not subject to similar duties. This does level the playing field. Mr. Speaker, this agreement will help potato growers in central Washington fairly compete with Canadian potato exporters who are subject to lower tariffs because of favorable trade agreements reached by Canada and Costa Rica. According to the Washington State Potato Commission, central Washington and U.S. potato exports to Costa Rica have declined by 81 percent as a result of the Canada-Costa Rica agreement, and U.S. producers will continue to lose market share unless CAFTA-DR is approved. Many associations in my State have voiced support for CAFTA-DR, including the Washington State Farm Bureau, the Northwest Horticultural Council, the Washington State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Washington Apple Commission, the Washington State Potato Commission, to name only a few. Mr. Speaker, CAFTA-DR will help level the playing field for our farmers and tree fruit growers and is a crucial step forward for agriculture and many other industries that create jobs and play important roles in the long-term growth of our economy. The Senate has approved this agreement by a vote of 54 to 45. It is now time for the House to do the same to ensure that this measure and the benefits that it will provide will become law. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), my classmate and good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very tempted by my friend on the Committee on Rules that I serve with when he says we follow these rules, this rule says waives all points of order against consideration of the bill in item 3; five, says waives all points of order; eight, it says waives all points of order. There is a notwithstanding clause. I want to know what part does the gentleman see as following the rules. The simple fact of the matter is we are not going to be discussing Darfur, we are not going to be discussing Colombia, we are not going to be discussing Haiti, and somewhere along the line we could have done that under the rules. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, or WRDA. 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 river system is a great resource, a resource that must be well-managed and protected. Hydroelectric dams provide clean, low- cost renewable power. These facilities also provide a system of locks that allow for the efficient transport of tons of agricultural products to coastal ports, which reduces congestion on our highways and rail systems. The dams allow for the control of floods, should that be necessary. The coastal ports that receive the river-barged goods and products also need careful attention. They are the gateways to overseas markets. The success of farmers and manufacturers throughout the Northwest depend upon these ports being navigable and appropriately maintained. I want to highlight several provisions of this bill that are of importance to the communities and individuals that I represent in central Washington. Like the WRDA bill passed by the House in the last Congress, this bill includes direction to the Corps of Engineers to allow workers at northwest dams to participate in wage surveys. This is a simple matter of equity as workers' participation in wage survey is afforded to other Federal workers doing similar jobs, especially at other facilities in the northwest. I have worked with the United Power trade organization on this effort, and I am pleased it once again will pass the House. This bill also includes language that will 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 waste water treatment project. This project is a creative initiative by the Port of Sunnyside to improve the river habitat and provide for greater economic growth in the local community. This provision ensures that the Port of Sunnyside gets proper credit for funds it invests as it works with the Corps to make this project a reality. Finally, this legislation lifts Corps restrictions on the development of several Port of Pasco properties. I am very hopeful that elimination of these flowage easements will allow beneficial use of this prime riverfront property to move forward to the betterment of Pasco and the Tri-Cities, of which Pasco is one of the three 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. This is the purpose of the WRDA bill and why it is important that it pass the House and the Senate act on it this year to ensure that this measure and the benefits it provides will become law. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying WRDA bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Upper White Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, H.R. 38, passed the House by a voice vote. I want to make clear where I stand on this issue. The White Salmon River begins in the Cascade Mountains, fed by snowmelt from nearby Mt. Adams and the rains for which Western Washington is famous. The river makes its way south, winding through Skamania and Klickitat counties, until it meets the Columbia River in the heart of the Columbia River Gorge. The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act made much of the lower river part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program. At the same time, it directed the Forest Service to study the suitability of the upper river for designation as well. The legislation passed this week adds 20 miles of the Upper White Salmon River and Cascade Creek to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program. This portion of the river is entirely within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and outside of the Fourth District of Washington, which I represent. While I did not oppose the legislation the House passed earlier this week, I do want to make clear that I would have considerable concerns with any proposal to declare as Wild and Scenic any currently undesignated portions of the White Salmon River that flows through the district that I represent. The views of local county commissioners, elected officials and affected landowners would be of paramount interest to me should any such designation be suggested or proposed. This portion of the river does not run through Federal land, but through private property of economic importance to the landowners and local communities. The burden of Federal regulation is already very heavy on the area, and I have great reservations about actions that would make the load even more difficult to bear. We have an obligation to protect the natural treasures of the Columbia Gorge while also protecting the livelihoods of those that make their homes there. I look forward to continuing to work closely with my colleagues from the Northwest to make sure we strike the right balance on such matters.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank again my colleagues from California, Texas and Florida. I think that kind of at least covers the breadth of the Nation. In the breadth of the Nation, I think what happens sometimes is maybe some of our colleagues have never suffered discrimination, but I have gone seeking an apartment that later was rented to someone else and told that the apartment was not available. It hurts. We should stop that kind of discrimination. We made progress, but we are not nearly there yet. This is a $7 million fund that can assist us in avoiding some measures of housing discrimination. As far as the chairman's suggestion about the backlog, one of the reasons the backlog occurs is because people do not get on the front end and do their work. It is like EEOC. They have a backlog because they do not have the funds to do what we could have them do if we properly funded it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, American workers produce goods that are second to none. However, our success in selling these goods in a global marketplace, and we have to admit that we are in a global market, is dependent on fair and open markets. The World Trade Organization continues to advance and create more fair and open markets. While I oppose the underlying bill, Members of the Congress should have the opportunity today to examine the merits of the United States' participation in the WTO. The debate on House Resolution 27 is an important one, and one that should be had. So I urge my colleagues to support the rule, House Resolution 304, and to oppose the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just ask my friend from California, I have no more requests for time except for me to close. If she is prepared to yield back, I will be prepared to yield back.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 304 is a rule providing for 2 hours of general debate on H.J. Res. 27, withdrawing the approval of the United States from the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, to be equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). The rule provides that during consideration of H.J. Res. 27 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this fair rule, but in opposition to the underlying H.J. Res. 27, withdrawing the approval of the United States from the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. In 1994, Congress passed the Uruguay Round Table Agreements Act establishing the World Trade Organization, an independent body charged with monitoring and determining compliance with trade agreements. That law authorized the President to accept the United States' membership in the WTO and requires a report to be submitted to Congress every 5 years on the United States' participation in the WTO. The law also offers Congress the opportunity every 5 years to assess whether continued membership in this organization is in the best interest of the United States. I believe that Members of the House should be afforded this opportunity to register their views on this question through a vote of the House, which I urge my colleagues to vote on in support of this rule. The United States already has low tariffs, few subsidies, and a history of abiding bylaws and agreements. Our farmers and producers in my area in central Washington and across the country are some of the most efficient in the world and are capable of competing and winning in world markets, so long as they do not face foreign government policies like subsidies and dumping practices that stack the deck against them. The enforcement of a rules-based trading system through the World Trade Organization is our best opportunity to gain access to these markets for our Nation's farmers and rural communities. The removal of artificial barriers to trade is of critical importance to apple growers and tree fruit farmers in the agricultural-based economy in central Washington that I represent. I am pleased that in 2003, the World Trade Organization stood up for the apple growers in central Washington and across the Nation by leveling the playing field in a dispute over Japan's import restrictions on imported U.S. apples. For nearly a decade, U.S. apple growers dealt with Japan's unjustified import requirements, which are imposed with no scientifically sound evidence. Trade restrictions should be based on scientific evidence and should be implemented on a limited basis, not used merely as tools to create unfair trade barriers. The World Trade Organization ruled that Japan's restrictions were not justified and were in breach of their World Trade Organization obligations. This United States victory brought the hopes of meaningful access to Japan's markets to the domestic apple industry and will help us fight similar trade barriers in markets throughout the world. Withdrawing from the World Trade Organization would result in our farmers, growers, and producers being shut out of these export opportunities and the loss of millions of jobs depending on them. Therefore, I believe that we must support our Nation's continued membership in the WTO and must continue aggressive enforcement of the rules of international trade. Our Nation's economy can continue to grow if we have access to global markets on a level playing field. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to oppose the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 304 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Joyce McMillin, a constituent of mine who dedicated so much of her time and energy to honoring the brave men and women who have served our Nation in uniform. Honoring. our veterans was a priority for Joyce--as it should be for all Americans. Along with her husband Tom, who himself is a veteran of the Korean War, Joyce made it one of her final missions in life to create a memorial to those who have fought to protect our Nation. It is because of her vision, hard work and perseverance that the Regional Veterans Memorial now stands in Kennewick's Columbia Park. Creating the Regional Veterans Memorial was not an easy process. After coming up with the idea, Joyce and Tom had to sell their vision to the community, secure a location and raise the funds necessary to build it. Tragically, Joyce lost her battle with cancer shortly before the Regional Veterans Memorial ribbon cutting ceremony, which she had organized. I recently had the opportunity to visit the Memorial, and it is an impressive and fitting monument to American soldiers--past and present. It is a special place for current and future generations to reflect on the sacrifices made by those who have served in our Armed Forces. This Memorial is truly Joyce McMillin's legacy to the Tri- Cities. Our community is a better place because of her. I would like to conclude by noting how proud I am to live in a community that is so committed to our veterans. I commend the McMillin family, the Tri-Cities Memorial Committee and everyone who helped make the new Regional Veterans Memorial a reality.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, while I am not present for today's debate on this rule or on the underlying Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill due to an illness in my family, I do urge my colleagues to support both measures. This is an open rule and allows for full debate on funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and all programs and activities of the Department of Energy in the next fiscal year. Writing this bill was a challenging task, as Subcommittee Chairman Hobson had over $130 million less to spend in Fiscal Year 2006 than was spent in Fiscal Year 2005. I commend Chairman Hobson for the tremendous leadership he has shown in constructing this bill and for garnering bipartisan support for it in both his Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee. I fully expect it will pass this House with strong bipartisan support as well. I particularly want to thank Chairman Hobson for the continued commitment he has shown to the Department of Energy's Environmental Management program and cleanup of the Hanford site in Washington state. The Administration's proposed budget reductions at Hanford would have jeopardized the progress and cleanup momentum that has been achieved through accelerated cleanup over the past 3 years and put cleanup deadlines in jeopardy of being missed. The restoration of over $200 million for Hanford in this bill will ensure that cleanup momentum continues, the Department has the ability to meet its legal timelines, and that skilled workers remain on the job. The Federal government has a legal and moral obligation to cleanup Hanford and the Nation's other nuclear waste sites, and this bill ensures that these promises are kept. In addition to significantly restoring funds to Hanford's budget, this bill provides funding for preservation of the B Reactor, for operation of the Volpentest HAMMER training facility, and for the critical effort to develop replacement lab space for Pacific Northwest National Lab scientists who will soon be required to vacate their current workspaces for cleanup work. PNNL is home to world-class researchers and ensuring they are able to continue their work is important for our Nation and for the economic future of the TriCities community in Washington state. While water project funding is much tighter this year due to overall spending constraints, I am pleased that several important Washington state initiatives were included in this bill. Scarce funds will be used to continue the progress on the Bureau or Reclamation study of additional water storage in the Yakima River Basin that I began in 2003. Additional funding is also provided for work to address depletion of the Odessa Subaquifer, the Port of Sunnyside's wastewater treatment and wetland restoration project, and the deepening of the Columbia River channel. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support passage of the underlying Energy and Water Appropriations bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier) for his graceful words. And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that no one has worked longer and harder over the years or devoted more personal energy to the critically important institutional issues of this House than the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). Those issues do not win you many headlines back home but they are absolutely essential to our continuing ability to work in an effective bipartisan fashion history in the people's House. So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for his leadership in the past and his insistence in moving this resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced House Resolution 240 for one reason and one reason only: to restore a functioning ethics process here in the House. Regrettably, the Democrats have kept the Ethics Committee shut down now for more than 2 months. It simply must be restarted as soon as possible. Members will recall that in January as part of our opening day rules package for the 109th Congress, the Members of this House adopted a series of much-needed ethics reforms. We adopted those reforms in order to ensure that the ethics rules treat Members of the House as fairly as possible. We believe, for example, and still believe that it is unfair for the Ethics Committee to tell individuals called before the committee during an investigation whom they can or cannot hire as their lawyer. This right to counsel, after all, is a fundamental right enjoyed by all Americans, so we moved to protect it. In addition, we believed and still believe that it is unfair for Members to be publicly embarrassed when the committee issues a public letter of reprimand or admonishment or violation, et cetera, without providing the Member in question with any advance notice that they are being scrutinized by the committee in any way. So we moved to make sure that this never happens to any Member of either party in the future. And finally, we believe and still believe that it is unfair for Members of either party to be kept in perpetual limbo after initial investigation of a complaint if a bipartisan majority of the committee cannot agree to proceed with the full-scale investigation. Contrary to many published reports, no investigation has ever been undertaken by the Ethics Committee without bipartisan support. But under the old rules of the 108th Congress, the burden of proof to get out from under an ethical cloud fell on the Member in question, whether Democrat or Republican. So we acted to restore fairness to that part of the ethics process as well. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the full House adopted these rules, the Democrat members of our committee refused to accept the clear directive of the House and to let us organize our committee. For 2 months now, I have worked in good faith to address the substantive objections of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) to these rules, and I know that he holds these objections in a very sincere way. And while I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from West Virginia, I regret that he has declined to consider any of my proposed compromises. As it should be, membership on our committee is evenly divided between the majority and minority, which means that substantive action of any kind requires support from both sides of the aisle and a genuine commitment to compromise. However, Democrat leaders and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have made clear that they remain absolutely unwilling to compromise on any of these matters and insist on overturning the expressed will of the House by returning to the rules of the 108th Congress. Because I believe it is severely damaging to this institution to permit Members on the other side of the aisle to keep the doors locked on the Ethics Committee, I have concluded that we must return now to the rules of the past Congress, the 108th Congress. My resolution would do just that. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that once Democrats agree to put a functioning Ethics Committee back in business, they will then agree to work with us in a bipartisan way to address the real problems of unfairness to Members that are inherent in the 108th rules. Mr. Speaker, the American people have every right to expect the highest ethical standards here in the House. Those of us charged with upholding the integrity of the institution stand ready to carry out our important responsibilities. Accordingly, I urge adoption of H. Res. 240 so all of us who serve on the Ethics Committee, from both sides of the aisle, can get back to work.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to 2005 Washington State Teacher of the Year and one of four national finalists for 2005 Teacher of the Year--Ms. Tamara Steen. Since 1963, Washington state has honored one outstanding classroom teacher each year who is then eligible for the national honor. I am extremely proud that out of over 2.8 million elementary and secondary teachers nationwide, Ms. Steen was recognized as one of four finalists for the national honor announced by President Bush. Ms. Steen is an innovative and compassionate teacher who has taught in the small rural town of Mabton, Washington for over two decades. In her years of teaching she has motivated students to achieve a higher standard. Ms. Steen is a teacher who is willing to work hard for her students, and expects her students to work hard for her in return. Ms. Steen currently teaches English at Mabton Junior/Senior High School where she uses innovative teaching strategies to actively engage her students in learning. Despite the many challenges she is faced with each day, Ms. Steen's enthusiasm for her profession and her devotion to her students continues to grow. In a society where teachers do not always receive the appreciation they deserve, I am pleased to honor and commend Ms. Steen for her decades of dedication to students in Central Washington. Ms. Steen exemplifies the best of America. To Ms. Steen and the teachers across America that are educating tomorrow's leaders, thank you.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind my colleagues that the rule that we are debating here to talk about the repeal of the death tax makes in order the substance of the subject that the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about, the Pomeroy substitute. We will have a vigorous debate on that. This is a very fair rule so that we can debate the difference between the two, and the body will work its will. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a powerful member of the Committee on Rules.