Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Dr. Terry Martin who has been named the Washington State Professor of the year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. Each year outstanding professors are honored by the Carnegie Foundation and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education for their service as models of excellence in undergraduate instruction. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the 2003 Washington State award winner, Dr. Terry Martin, an English professor at Central Washington University. Clearly, Dr. Martin has demonstrated her dedication to teaching and her students. Dr. Martin has been honored for her commitment to academic excellence in the classroom and her contribution to the education community. She has published over 35 articles in professional journals, judged numerous writing and poetry contests, served as a member of the Washington State Steering Committee for Improving Undergraduate Education, and served as a State Board member for the Washington Council of Teachers of English. Thank you for the opportunity to recognize Dr. Martin. Her innovation and commitment to teaching has clearly had a tremendous impact on the lives of her students and colleagues, and serves as an example of excellence in education.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 424 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule so we can get on to fund the very important operation that we have in the Mideast. I just remind my colleagues that more than 75 percent of this bill goes to make sure that our troops are secure in this theater. 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 reserve 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 reserve 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 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), a valuable member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 424 is a rule providing for the consideration of a conference report to accompany H.R. 3289, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense and for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that in its particulars, the conference agreement is largely consistent with the House passed version of the supplemental. In the aggregate, the agreement provides a total of $87.5 billion, which is $500 million above the President's request. Of that sum, $18.6 billion is provided for Iraq relief and reconstruction, which is $1.7 billion below the President's request. Mr. Speaker, now that the House and Senate conferees have reached agreement on this emergency supplemental, it is imperative that we move without delay to make these funds available both to our troops in the field and for the vitally important work of rebuilding Iraq. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington 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 421 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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 yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, our resolution would waive clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules against certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. This resolution applies the waiver to any special rule reported on the legislative day of October 30, 2003, providing for the consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill, H.R. 3289, making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense and for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. Mr. Speaker, given the urgent need to move the Iraqi supplemental to the President's desk without further delay, the Committee on Rules has acted to expedite consideration of this critically important conference agreement filed in the House just a short while ago. Members will have ample opportunity to debate the merits of that conference agreement once we move to its consideration here in the House. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution so that we may begin this important debate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 418 ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. Speaker, House Resolution 418 is a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2691, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule further provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, the Interior conference report that the House shall consider, following adoption of this rule, provides for $19.8 billion in budget authority for fiscal year 2004, which is $300 million above the level requested by the administration. Specifically, the bill provides increased levels of funding for the National Park Service, for our system of National Wildlife Refuges, for the Indian Health Service, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, among others. As a Member from the West, I am particularly pleased that the conference agreement provides for $227.5 million for payment in lieu of taxes, or PILT, which is greatly needed to reimburse local communities in Western States whose tax rolls are limited by extensive Federal land holdings in their areas. This bill funds PILT at a level of $7.5 million above the current year and $22.5 million above the level requested by the administration. The bill also provides $212 million for Indian Trust reform to ensure that Indian Tribes receive full value for oil, gas and other mineral resources Federal agencies permit to be produced on their lands. By law, the Interior Department serves as trustee for Indian lands and resources, and Congress is committed to taking the steps necessary to see that the Department carries out those trust responsibilities to their fullest. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the conferees are to be commended for their efforts to fund a wide range of forest, health and wildfire safety initiatives. The tragic wildfires now raging in California have focused the public's attention on the importance of reducing the threat of massive fires that endanger both lives and property in their affected areas. This year, the Congress has provided historic levels of resources for Federal fire fighting assistance, including in this conference report a total of $2.9 billion, one of the largest one-time fire fighting allocations in our history. The bill includes $2.5 billion for the national fire plan, as well as additional $400 million to repay wildfire suppression expenses of last year. These funds emphasize providing fire fighting resources and personnel to keep fires small, reducing wildfire risks by reducing the buildup of hazardous fuels, increasing State, volunteer and community assistance, and stepped up research and development, performance monitoring and accountability. Specifically, the conference agreement increases wildfire suppression by $289 million over the current year, wildfire preparedness by $65 million, hazardous fuels reduction by $11 million, and forest health and rehabilitation activities by $35 million over the current year. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and his fellow House conferees have done an excellent job under challenging circumstances. They have negotiated an agreement which protects the House positions on provisions far too numerous to mention, and they have reported a balanced bill that meets the most pressing needs of Interior Department and related agencies. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the conference agreement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 401 ask for its immediate consideration.

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, as has been mentioned in different forms earlier in this debate, this is serious business. It is serious business. And I believe knowing that we are engaged in this war on terrorism, which we have been now for over 2 years, we have to respond in a timely manner to those Americans that we put at risk. And I would remind my colleagues that three-fourths of this bill, or slightly more, goes to support our troops. And we have focused on other parts. Probably that is good for the debate, but we should not lose sight of the fact that three-fourths of this goes directly to our troops. Now, we have some difference of opinion between the other House with their supplemental budget. The quicker we can get this into conference, the quicker we can get a bill passed; and the quicker we can get the President to sign it to support our troops, frankly, the better off we are. I would just make one observation that I found rather interesting, because we spent a great deal of time debating before I was here on the Gulf War resolution. I was not here. But I understand that was a debate that was inspiring for the Congress. That really, when we look at that from a historical standpoint, is why we are here today, because of whatever reasons and agreements were made following the Gulf War, Saddam remained in power. Now we are in a situation where we have to complete that. We had a long debate when we decided to go to war in Iraq this year, properly the right thing to do. And now we have debated this supplemental to support our troops for into the third day. From a historical standpoint, I would just like to remind Members that sometimes this body moves extremely fast on important issues. Right after December 7, 1941, when we declared war on Japan and Germany, the U.S. House of Representatives allocated 40 minutes for each of those resolutions. I think it is important for us to get this done as quickly as we possibly can. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this new rule to recklessly cease debate and eliminate all opportunity for amendments on behalf of the American people. I now will speak to H.R. 3289 before us. The task of stabilizing and reconstructing Iraq may end up being one of the greatest challenges of our generation. Although we are getting rosy reports of progress in Iraq from the administration, the fact that we have 130,000 troops in the area and are now being handed an $87 billion tab paints a fully different picture. It is now obvious that the administration grossly underestimated the cost and difficulty of stabilizing Iraq, almost to the same extent that they overestimated the threat posed to the American people by Saddam Hussein. Even the so- called ``soft costs'' of the war and its aftermath are enough to cripple some nations. This is not revisionist history; at least a hundred of us in Congress, millions of citizens who took to the streets, and even a handful of brave souls in the administration itself, tried to warn the administration of what it was getting into with its pre-emptive strike on Iraq. We were ignored, and those in the administration--the Shinseki's and the Lindsey's have been encouraged to move on. But the problems in Iraq have not gone away so gracefully. We are now at an important crossroads. We can continue to beat this dead horse with the same policies of isolation from our allies around the world and partisanship here in the United States or, we can start working together--employing the collective wisdom of all of us here and around the Nation with the experience and expertise to be of service in this endeavor--and who are committed to our troops, and to fulfilling the promise the President made to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and to the world. As this debate comes to the Halls of Congress, the people who marched us into this war will try to paint this vote as a vote for or against our troops. This is absolutely a false picture. For one thing, our military is extremely well funded. As I just described, including the Iraq supplementals, the Defense budget will be approaching $500 billion. Furthermore, Iraq is not an indigent nation. If they wanted to, they could take better care of our troops. Secretary Rumsfeld wants to spend billions of dollars on a Star Wars defense system, while we are getting reports that our soldiers risking their lives in Iraq don't have adequate body armor, or clean water supplies, or basic human necessities like feminine hygiene products for our women soldiers. Six months after this battle started, we still have soldiers without kevlar body armor and water purifiers. What did they do with the first $79 billion war supplemental? We now have a new request for money, but we still have not heard details of how they spent the first money, what progress has been made, and what challenges remain. I visited the As-Sayliyah Central Command Base in Doha, Qatar last weekend and heard the concerns of the troops from their own mouths. I heard testimony about how a ground soldier, watched his partner and the operator of a military vehicle get tossed out as the vehicle was thrown airborne by a land mine. ``Why did you hit this mine,'' I asked. ``It was just one of those mines that was missed in the sweep . . .,'' said the soldier. Because there isn't enough personnel or specialists to assign to technical tasks, unskilled or untrained technicians frequently get asked to do jobs that they have not mastered enough to guarantee the lives of those who must traverse the sands of Baghdad. The soldier misses his wife and newborn baby dearly. Because there hasn't been a change in the personnel on the front lines in several months, many reservists and active duty servicemen and women have spent a longer time in Iraq than was promised by the Administration. May 1, 2003 was supposed to have been a day of hope and homecoming; instead, it was a sham. Some of these troops feel like ``sitting ducks'' out in the foreign terrain. They don't speak Arabic. They don't know Tikrit like they know their hometowns. When I asked them if they have seen any troops of other coalition nations, they responded, ``what coalition troops?'' They need support and they need continuous relief. The President and his friends in Leadership in Congress did not listen to the warnings of the Congressional Black Caucus, or our international allies, or hundreds of thousands of like-minded citizens who took to the streets. Some of my Democratic colleagues voted for this war, because they believed in the institution of the Presidency, and thought they had to give this administration the benefit of the doubt. I did not. Regardless, now the President has cut open this patient, and the patient is laying on the surgical table. The President has made a promise to the people of Iraq and to the world that we will leave the patient better than we found it--and it is up to our American soldiers and the American taxpayers to fulfill that promise. Much of the toughest burden will fall on the shoulders of the families of our troops overseas. Therefore, I have submitted amendments that speak to alleviation of this burden. (1) I firmly believe that before any further funds are sent to Iraq to rebuild that country, we need to ensure that our men and women in the armed forces--reservists as well as active servicemen and women are receiving the money and services that they deserve and in a timely fashion. Dr. Jones, who works under Lt. Col. Corbett shared this concern with me during my visit. (2) I also believe that the Pentagon needs to develop a plan to ensure that none of our troops or government employees must remain stationed in Iraq for more than 6 months at a time. (3) Furthermore, the administration must announce a definite and clear exit plan for the troops to give them real hope and a notion that an end to the fighting is truly near. (4) There should also be more trained military policemen and women stationed in Iraq to mitigate the vulnerabilities experienced by these men and women. (5) Similarly, they need proper job allocation so that lives are not lost due to erroneous assignment of duties. (6) Moreover, as to the national guard servicepersons, the scheduled end of deployment should be honored rather than making them continue fighting until their respective units are released. Despite their frustrations, I encouraged them with the following phrase, ``you are as much defenders as you are peace-keepers'' to let them know that their work truly matters the most for the people of Iraq as well as the people at home in the United States. I sincerely wish the President had not put us in this situation, but he and his administration did. And now we have to deal with it. If we are going to deal with it, I feel at this point it is critical to take some of the control away from the people who have made horrible misjudgments at every step of the way, who misled the American people and the Congress about the need for war, and who ignored warnings from inside and outside the administration. Either they knew the truth, chose to mislead us, or they did not take the time to adequately assess and plan for the true situation. Either way, senior members of this administration were not doing their jobs. That is why before any appropriations are sent to rebuild Iraq, the Congress and the American people need to see an independent investigation in progress, looking deeply into several questions: whether U.S. intelligence reports were manipulated in order to misrepresent the threat Saddam Hussein posed to American interests; whether the costs and dangers of invading and occupying Iraq were deliberately understated; whether American officials who offered differing views of Iraq became the victims of inappropriate or illegal retaliation; and whether one or more individuals within the administration is or are responsible for the leak of classified information regarding intelligence reports and the veracity of accounts as to the purchase of ``yellowcake'' for nuclear weapons production. If any of these allegations are proved true, those responsible must be held accountable. I am concerned that there has been a methodical and undemocratic effort to mislead and intimidate the American people and the world in order to march us into this war. And now we are being given an $87 billion bill to pay for that effort. As we move forward in Iraq, unfortunately, we have severely limited options. Because people like Secretary Rumsfeld have used reckless speech that has angered and exasperated our allies, many of our most staunch allies are now reluctant to get involved in stabilizing and reconstructing Iraq. While our State Department has been reaching out around the world with a hand of cooperation and partnership, Mr. Rumsfeld has proudly displayed his arrogance and disdain for anyone not walking lockstep with him. Too much is at stake to distance ourselves from those whose help we need. People from democracies around the world are now being asked to trust this administration with the lives of their sons and daughters in the military, by sending them to fight under a U.S. command whose leaders show them blatant disrespect. They are being encouraged to send their hard-earned money to reconstruct Iraq under the authority of this administration that gives the largest contracts to its political supporters, that seems to have no credible plan for the future, and that ignores the advice of even the most trusted experts on the world stage. It is not surprising that they are not stepping up with money and troops. I think the problem is basically a lack of trust. I can't blame them. I do not trust this administration to do the right thing in Iraq either. I do not intend to vote to send another dime to Iraq until the President takes some dramatic steps to restore credibility to his Administration: First, I want to see new faces in top positions, starting with Donald Rumsfeld. We need people who choose integrity over politics and respect over arrogance. Second, I want to see a full accounting of how they spent the first $79 billion, and exactly how they came up with this $87 billion figure. Our sources say that the armed services were barely consulted on those numbers--that some critical needs were totally left out, and others grossly exaggerated. We need honest accounting. And third, once we have a true picture of what funds are necessary to support our troops, Congress should be able to vote on that funding alone--separate from the money needed for reconstruction of Iraq. That ``bifurcated vote'' will allow us to quickly get money to protect our brave soldiers, but will also give us the time we need to thoughtfully craft a plan for reconstruction--a plan that will include our allies, and the World Bank, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and oil and natural resources from Iraq itself. Those are the three things I want to see before I can consider giving any more money to this administration for the United States effort in Iraq. This does not mean that I do not want to support our troops. And this does not mean that I want to break the president's promise to the Iraqi people and to the world that he would make things better in Iraq. Instead, it is a call for action. I want to get the appropriate amount of money to the people who deserve it--but right now I am not confident that $87 billion is the right amount or that it would be spent in a way that would help our troops, help the Iraqi people, stabilize the region, or prevent terrorism. Mr. Speaker, there are just too many questions and not enough answers. Why do we need $950 million for recruiting and training of police forces in Iraq, when we need more money for police and firefighters in Houston, New York, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia? Why do we need $209 million for prison and detention facilities, and $100 million for construction of a new prison in Iraq, when our Federal prisons are overcrowded and severely underfunded. Too many questions, and not enough answers, Mr. Speaker. Do we really need $100 million for a witness protection program, and $5.65 billion to repair and rehabilitate the infrastructure in Iraq, when a few months ago the whole Eastern seaboard was without power? Are we really serious? Finally, Mr. Speaker, are we really serious about supplying Iraq with $793 million for health care programs, when we still have children without health insurance, elderly without health insurance, and our poor citizens without health insurance. There are just too many questions, and not enough answers. There will be many thoughtful amendments offered that could ensure that the funds that we do not bankrupt our Treasury, while failing our troops and the people who need our help. I urge all of my colleagues to put politics and pride aside and consider them, so that together we can get our efforts in the Middle East back on track. I have several amendments that I think will help get our policies back on track. My first amendment states that none of the funds made available in this act may be obligated or expended until Government personnel policies have been implemented to ensure that no members of the Armed Forces or Government employees are being required to be stationed in Iraq continuously for a period greater than 6 months. The President has stated that the war on terror will be a long and involved one. Therefore we must pace ourselves, and we must ensure that our armed services can continue to recruit good people in the future. This amendment will help ensure that our troops and their families remain mentally fit and rested, and that military tours will remain a reasonable commitment in service to this Nation. The second states that of the funds made available in this act may be obligated or expended until all Reserve and National Guard personnel are paid in full. The third amendment requires that none of the funds made available in this act may be obligated or expended until the President has submitted to Congress a report setting forth in detail the strategy and projected timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces in Iraq. Without goals, I am concerned that our efforts in Iraq could drift indefinitely. Congress and the American people must know what lies ahead, so that we can plan appropriately. The fourth is a sense of the House of Representatives that, before any appropriation under this act is obligated, a special counsel should be appointed to investigate the propriety and legality of actions by the administration in connection with the unauthorized release of classified information. We have a complex mission ahead of us in the Middle East. To succeed we will need to take advantage of every single national security asset at our disposal. Recently, one of our top CIA operatives was ``outed'' by White House employees, thus compromising her work and even the lives of her sources and acquaintances overseas. If we do not show the appropriate immediate vigorous response, we could undermine our efforts in the Middle East, by discouraging people to come to American officials with assistance or information. Finally, I have two amendments that will help refocus some of our energy and resources on Afghanistan. The supplemental continues to shortchange Afghanistan's reconstruction and security, and it does this at the peril of jeopardizing the rights of Afghan women and girls and hopes for a peaceful, democratic Afghanistan. The proposed funding levels neither adequately make up for the small amounts of reconstruction funding thus far nor do they meet the country's needs. In the last 2 years only 1 percent of Afghanistan's reconstruction needs have been met. The country remains in shambles from two decades of war and lack of development. Most people in the country do not have access to electricity, health care, schools, and sanitation. Not only is the lack of reconstruction depriving people of very basic services, but it is contributing to instability in the country and a lack of confidence in the central government. The transitional government in Afghanistan estimates that between $20 to 30 billion is needed over the next five years. In other post- conflict settings, an average of $250 per person was spent per year in aid. But in Afghanistan, donors spent only $64 per person in 2002. The proposed $800 million Afghanistan reconstruction supplemental spending request represents less than 1 percent of the total $87 billion Iraq and Afghanistan package. The $20 billion request for Iraq reconstruction funding is 25 times as large as the Afghanistan request. Yet Afghanistan has approximately the same population size as Iraq and suffered more destruction over 23 years of war. House Chairman Young's mark to increase reconstruction funding for Afghanistan by $400 million is a step in the right direction. But still more must be done. My first Afghanistan amendment will shift $20 million from the Iraq budget toward Afghanistan to be used for developing electricity-generation and transmission infrastructure. If Afghanistan is ever going to thrive and progress, it will need consistent sources of energy, to power its factories, hospitals and homes. These funds will help. The other amendment will improve the plight of Afghan women and girls. Women and girls continue to face severe hardship and violations of their rights in Afghanistan. Yet the Afghanistan request does not specify funds for programs to improve the status of women and to remedy the tremendous injustices they faced under the Taliban regime. My amendment proposes designating $300 million for women's programs in the area of political rights and human rights, health care, education and training, and security, protection and shelters. I also propose earmarks of $10 million of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and $24 million for the Ministry of Women's Affairs. We must provide direct support to help strengthen those women-led, permanent Afghan institutions whose mission it is to promote women's rights and human rights. These are funds already authorized in the Afghan Freedom Support Act of 2002, but which still for the most part have not been appropriated. Some girls have gone back to school in Afghanistan, but the majority have not because there are not enough schools and those that do exist are in very bad shape. The Asian Development Bank estimates that an additional 13,851 primary schools need to be constructed, but the administration request is only for 275 schools. Some 40 percent of schools in Afghanistan were completely destroyed during the war, another 15 percent were heavily damaged, and in many areas of the country there were no schools for girls. What's more, the advances in girls' education that have been made are under attack. In the past year, fundamentalist extremists have burned down, bombed, and otherwise violently attacked more than 30 girls schools. At most of the sites of these attacks, leaflets have been distributed threatening the families of girls who attend school or the teachers who teach them. Flyers distributed at the site of one of the first attacks read ``Stop sending your women to offices and daughters to schools. It spreads indecency and vulgarity. Stand ready for the consequences if you do not heed the advice.'' Some families are now afraid to send their daughters to school. Our Nation promised to help free Afghan women; we cannot allow the extremists to take back these newly won freedoms. I hope my colleagues will support these amendments. We must look toward a brighter future in Iraq, and work together to make that vision happen.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman to use his speaker.