Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 671 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan is a large part of why I have the honor of standing here today. I am from Washington State but in the mid-1960s I lived in California. In 1966 I had the privilege of casting my first vote for Ronald Reagan in the gubernatorial primary and subsequently in the general election when he was elected Governor. I moved back to Washington in 1976, and I served as a Reagan delegate to the Presidential Convention in Kansas City. He inspired me to get involved in public service. And 2 years later, I was elected to the Washington State legislature. Reagan viewed the government as a servant of the people, not their master. Throughout his career, he worked for less government control over our lives. During his first inaugural address he said, and I quote, ``It is not my intent to do away with government. It is rather to make it work, work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it, foster productivity, not stifle it.'' While he made no apologies for what he believed, he was a pragmatist, not willing to sacrifice the good for the perfect. He has been quoted as saying, and I quote, ``Die-hard conservatives thought that if I could not get everything that I asked for, I should jump off the cliff with the flag flying, go down in flames. No,'' he said, ``if I can get 70 or 80 percent of what I am trying to get, I will take that and then continue to try to get the rest in the future.'' We can all point to a handful of people who shaped us into what we are today. My list certainly includes Ronald Reagan, who helped shape both my political ideology and the day-to-day manner in which I try to govern: without acrimony, with a touch of humor, and with an unwavering faith in the American people.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I see one of my predecessors from the Fourth District is waiting to speak, too. I want to congratulate our Members for being here to honor Catherine May Bedell. I regret that I did not know her. She represented the Fourth Congressional District. I did not know her. I knew of her. I did cast ballots for her before I got actively involved in politics. But she was certainly somebody that had leadership qualities. I recall that in one of the articles announcing that she had passed away, one of my friends serves in the State legislature, Mary Skinner said that she first remembers when she met Catherine May, and she was impressed by the presence that she had in a group of people talking about policy. I thought that was a very high compliment. I, too, spoke with Jim May. He kind of gave me a heads-up on Tuesday, and I did not touch bases with him until Wednesday when we had a conversation. Catherine May Bedell just turned 90 last month. My mother also just turned 90 last month. He told me that she passed away very quietly in her sleep; and she had a very, very good life. Obviously, when you lose somebody as close as your mother, it is a shock to you, but he said she lived a very, very good life. I am certainly pleased to be here on the floor with my colleagues to honor one of my predecessors who represented my district in Washington State.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we will have a vigorous debate on this. As I mentioned, I am opposed to the underlying constitutional amendment. I think it is bad policy, but I think it should be debated in the People's House. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we can sure tell how important this debate is, and I do appreciate my colleague from Washington State for his passion on this. I do disagree with his approach, but he is going to have an opportunity to debate that when this rule passes, and we will have a debate on a constitutional amendment of appointing Members of this body. But I want to just go back and I guess reflect on how we have tried to deal with this in the course of the history of our country. After the Revolutionary War, when we formed a new government, it was the Articles of Confederation. Our Founders found out that did not work all that well for a variety of reasons, I suspect because there was a division of powers and there was no central government, and so the Founders had to figure out a way how do we respect the people's government, which I think is very, very important, and still have some central authority. Part of that compromise was to make a bicameral legislature in which the lower house, the House of Representatives, the People's House, would always be elected by the people. Perhaps this debate is evolving into that very essential principle. I think that the government, this government of the people, by the people and for the people, as Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address, can function very well. I also believe there is no single answer to this question as we move forward. I mentioned in my opening remarks that we passed the Continuity of Congress Act providing for expedited elections by the States. This may be an approach. But even if we were to pass a constitutional amendment, and I do not think it is going to get the two-thirds, it would take up to perhaps 7 years to get that ratified by three-fourths of the States. We have to have something in place. I hope the other body acts on the continuity issue so we can have something in place to take care of that. Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue, and this will be the first time we will have an opportunity, the first time certainly to my knowledge that we will have an issue before the People's House, the U.S. House of Representatives, that will allow for something other than a direct election, under whatever circumstance, of Members of this House. This is a very, very important issue. I think it deserves to have a debate. This rule provides 90 minutes for that debate.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and an individual who has been a leader on this issue. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 657 is a rule providing for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 83, a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding appointment of individuals to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. The rule provides for 90 minutes of debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, on April 22 of this year, the House of Representatives debated and voted on H.R. 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act, which provides for the expedited special election of new Members to fill seats left vacant due to extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances would be deemed to exist when the Speaker of the House announces that vacancies in the House exceed 100 members. The special elections would be required to be held within 45 days. This bill passed the House with a broad majority of 306 votes in favor to 97 against. At the foundation of the Continuity in Representation Act is the principle that Members of this House ought to be elected by the people. This principle has guided service in this institution since its inception. Indeed, the purpose of the House is to serve as a Chamber that is closest to the people; closest to the people due to the equal size of our constituencies; closest to the people due to the frequency of elections; and, most important, closest to the people because of the direct election by the people. I support the Founding Fathers' view that Members of the House ought to be directly elected by the people and not selected for them. This rule provides for consideration of an approach that would amend the Constitution and allow for immediate appointment within 7 days of replacements for Members due to the death or incapacity of a majority of the House's membership. The appointments would be made by the chief executives of the States where a vacancy exists from a list provided and maintained by the elected Member. While I do not agree with changing the Constitution's requirements that Members of the House be directly elected, I do sincerely believe that our colleagues who do support this constitutional amendment deserve the opportunity to have their proposal voted upon by the House. Mr. Speaker, following the tragic events of September 11, this House has a responsibility and duty to consider the fate of this institution should it become necessary to replace a significant number of Members due to a deadly terrorist attack. Neither passage of the expedited elections bill nor consideration of H.J. Res. 83 alone serves as a comprehensive response to the continuity of this House in the face of deadly attack. For example, we must consider appropriate responses in the event that a large number of Members are incapacitated rather than killed. This is a potential scenario that cannot be ignored in a time of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons. In order to act, the Constitution requires the House to achieve a quorum of majority of all Members living and sworn. When a Member dies or resigns, the Speaker under the rules adjusts the quorum. However, the Framers never contemplated and made no provisions for the need to adjust the required quorum when large numbers of Members are still living but unable to carry out, temporarily or otherwise, the duties of the office to which they have been sworn. Under current law, if more than half of the House were to become incapacitated yet not deceased, the House could be unable to act at a time when the need to do so could hardly be greater. On April 29, the House Committee on Rules held an original jurisdiction hearing on the incapacitation of Members. Under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), the Committee on Rules is approaching this important issue with the seriousness and thoughtfulness it deserves. Mr. Speaker, while H.J. Res. 83 provides for the appointment of replacing representatives due to incapacity of elected Members, it does not offer an answer on how the House is to proceed on the question of defining or declaring incapacitation. These are important questions and the House must continue to deliberate seriously on their solutions. I am committed to working to address this complex continuity issue, and I know that the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) will continue their personal involvement and leadership on this issue, as well as other committed colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and continue the important consideration of how this House will operate should massive tragedy strike. 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 gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 657 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will restore $50 million cut by the House Armed Services Committee from the Department of Energy's proposed nuclear waste cleanup budget. It is important that the Federal government meet its legal and contractual cleanup obligations. By returning $50 million to the Defense Site Acceleration Completion account, this amendment helps make certain that funds are available to ensure the Federal government continues the progress being made at cleaning up our Nation's nuclear waste sites. Although the Committee decreased the portion of the nuclear waste cleanup budget related to high-level liquid waste, the remainder of the cleanup budget was fully authorized by the Committee. I am grateful for the support shown for cleanup by Armed Services Committee Chairman Hunter and Subcommittee Chairman Everett. However, I offered this amendment because I believe Congress ought to make certain that the funds deemed necessary for cleanup next year by the Department of Energy, and included in the President's budget, are made available. The Committee's action to cut funding for high-level liquid waste cleanup comes after a Federal district court ruling on high-level waste. While agreement on this matter has not yet been realized between the Department of Energy and the States in which affected waste sites are located, I believe it is important for the Congress to make available the funding so that planned cleanup activity does not have to be postponed due to unavailability of funds. By adding back $50 million, my amendment helps advance cleanup progress next year. The Federal government has a responsibility--a responsibility under the law...a contractual responsibility with the affected States...and a moral responsibility--to cleanup its nuclear waste sites. At the Hanford cleanup site in my Washington State congressional district, there are 177 underground tanks containing more than 50 million gallons of liquid waste that are affected by this funding. For many, those figures may be difficult to imagine--but for the people I represent in Washington State, the more than 50 million gallons of radioactive, nuclear waste is very real. The citizens of Washington State did not invite this waste into our State--in the 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project, the Federal government moved farmers from their land and uprooted several small communities from a 586 square mile area along the Columbia River to make room for a top-secret effort that ultimately helped lead to an end of the Second World War, and over the decades that followed, to victory in the Cold War. The legacy of this nuclear production is the more than 50 million gallons of liquid waste. It is the Department of Energy's obligation to cleanup these wastes-- and I will hold the Department responsible for getting this work done. I pushed this amendment to restore $50 million to the cleanup budget because it is essential that the funds be available to keep cleanup on track. I also firmly believe that the State of Washington must be involved in these decisions. I have opposed and will oppose any effort to force a solution on Washington State. Department of Energy officials have expressed their commitment not to pursue a change in the law that does not have the support of the affected states--and that commitment is constructive to resolving this matter. It has been my consistent view that the Department of Energy and States have a shared responsibility to resolve the current situation-- and I want to strongly reiterate that for the sake of cleaning up this massive volume of waste, reducing its potential threat to health and the environment, and to make certain cleanup progress is not jeopardized, that the sooner this matter is resolved, the better. I know the Department of Energy and States are committed to cleaning up these wastes--and continued disagreement only makes that shared goal more difficult. I will keep pushing for a resolution and I will continue working to make certain funds are available for cleanup work. I also want to express my great respect and appreciation to Mr. Simpson of Idaho and Mr. Barrett of South Carolina for the assistance and support they provided for this amendment and for success in adding $50 million to the cleanup budget.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. My point of order is when a Member yields time to another Member, does that Member have responsibility to abide by the time he was yielded to speak?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important document. It is an important document because this sets the parameters of congressional spending to fund the government for 2005. We have heard a great deal from the other side in this debate about the debt limit. I addressed that earlier. I acknowledge that because we inherited a recession 4 years ago and we were attacked by terrorists and now we are engaged in an international war on terrorism, yes, we have spent more than we have taken in, and we do have to address this issue of raising the debt limit. But if we do not pass a budget resolution, that means we will not have any discipline on the appropriation process as we go through appropriating dollars for fiscal year 2005. That means if we have no discipline that the debt limit will increase higher because that is the way this body has always worked. Passing this budget is very important to put that discipline in place. I would also make the observation, as I made earlier, every budget substitute amendment that was presented earlier when we were debating the House version of the budget, every one of those budgets acknowledged that we were going to have to address raising the debt limit in the future. Every one of them. They had it in different ways, different opportunities. Nevertheless, everyone acknowledged the fact that we have to address the debt limit problem. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest this, and I have learned this in the time that you and I have been here in this body. We will go through the appropriation process one way or the other. I think it is better to have the discipline of having a budget. But if we do not have the discipline of having a budget agreed to by both Houses, I suspect that what we will see when we go through the appropriation process from the other side, we will see, continually, amendments offered to raise more spending, which, of course, if it followed what they would be suggesting, we will have to raise the debt limit even higher. Sometimes I wonder what the debate is when I hear their rhetoric as we go through this process. I would urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question, vote for the rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 649 waives all points of order against the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005, and its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report shall be considered read and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. Section 2 of the rule provides that upon adoption in the House of the conference report, and until a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 has been adopted by Congress, the provisions of the conference report and its joint explanatory statement shall have force and effect in the House. The rule provides that for the purposes of title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the conference report shall be considered for the purposes of the House to have been adopted by the Congress. The rule provides that nothing in section 2 may be construed to engage rule XXVII. Section 3 of the rule provides that the conferees of the House on H.R. 2660, shall be, and they are hereby, discharged and that H.R. 2660 and its accompanying papers be, and are hereby, laid upon the table. This conference report adheres to the principal goals of the House- passed budget, Mr. Speaker, strengthening America, growing our economy, and continuing our Nation's long history as a land of opportunity. This budget provides for increased funding to help secure America's borders, defend against biological attacks, protect our critical infrastructure, and to prepare first responders. It takes a comprehensive and responsible approach to protecting our Nation, winning the war on terror, and preparing us for future security needs and challenges. Mr. Speaker, our economy is growing. It is headed in the right direction. By avoiding tax increases and protecting the child tax credit, relief from the marriage penalty, and tax relief for lower- income workers, this budget continues the policies that are helping to grow our economy. The budget also provides for full funding of Medicare so that seniors can get help paying for their prescription drugs for the first time ever. It also includes a $3.3 billion increase in budget authority for education to accommodate increases in programs like Pell Grants, special education, and Title I. And it provides for the full funding of No Child Left Behind. Mr. Speaker, it helps us keep promises to our veterans by providing an additional $1.2 billion over the President's requested increase for veterans' health care. The budget provides for these priorities and puts us on track to cut the deficit in 4 years, with deficits declining each and every year, and this is accomplished without raising taxes on the American people. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I would like to congratulate the chairman of that committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), and the conferees for producing a budget that is focused on securing America, creating jobs, and responsibly planning for the future. I encourage, therefore, my colleagues to support both the rule, H.R. 649, and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to a couple of points. The gentleman correctly pointed out that within this rule there is the provision that the debt limit will be raised. I think most people in this body recognize that. I mean, after all, we inherited 4 years ago a recession, then 9/11 happened, and we certainly had to fund the war on terror and all of those efforts, and that took more money than we had. In fact, in every budget that we considered on the floor, the other side acknowledged that we had to raise the debt limit. So, yes, if this is passed, and if the Senate passes this conference report, the debt limit will have been raised. However, if the Senate does not act on this, then we will have another opportunity to look at that debt limit in a different manner. I just wanted to make that clarification. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 649 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.