Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), who is a real leader in this body, in fact in the Congress, on health care issues

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 585 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 123, Making Continuing Appropriations for the fiscal year 2003. The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution and provides one motion to recommit. The rule also provides that House Resolutions 550, 551, and 577 are laid on the table. Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 123 makes further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2003 and provides funding at current levels through November 22, 2002. This measure is necessary in order that all necessary and vital functions of government may continue uninterrupted until Congress completes its work on spending measures for the next fiscal year. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass both the rule and the underlying resolution. 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 Florida (Mr. Hastings), my namesake, 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 585 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I am sorry if the gentleman misinterpreted what I said on that. The purpose of the CR is to fund the government for one more week, if, in fact, under that period of time these things can come together.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in the best of all worlds, of course, it would be nice if we could do that. Anything is possible. It is likely probably not, in all honesty.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last week we went through a very similar debate when we passed the CR last week to get us to this point. There was some heated discussion on the floor, and there was a bit of finger pointing. I do not think it does this institution all that good to point fingers, but I suppose that is just the nature of a political body that that has to happen. I think in that light it may be instructive just to review where we started in the 107th Congress and the start of this year and where we are right now. That perhaps has added to some of the sounds of confusion that we are going through this time. We are required by law, as we all know, to pass a budget and agree on some numbers between the House and the Senate. We have talked about that at length on the floor of this House, and we all know that the House responded to that in a way and passed a budget according to the rules and laws that we abide by. We also know that the Senate did not do that. It presents a problem, obviously, simply because we do not have an agreement on both sides by which to argue about our differences. It causes some dissension, certainly does not make the appropriators' job very easy, but that is the framework by which we have to work with this appropriation process. So we have tried then to get bills out at least and have broad consensus. Five of them, if my number is correct, have passed the House, now await action in the Senate, and we have some contentious appropriations bills that need to be acted on later. Every year, as a matter of fact, the same bills tend to pop up that are contentious, and the appropriators are working very hard to try to work out the differences so we can narrow that gap, but unfortunately, this year happens to be an election year. Everybody, or at least one- third of the other body and everybody in this body, desires to go home to campaign and hopefully come back and start the 108th Congress anew, but before we do that, of course, we have to finish this process. It is true when we were up in the Committee on Rules meeting earlier this afternoon, the CR was to take us until November 22. The reason for that time between then and now was to give the appropriators a little bit more time to work out the differences that they may or may not have and try to take a deep breath, come back after the election and get it resolved. Of course, in this body there are a lot of discussions that go on under the radar, and it was felt, probably through a signal of Members perhaps on both sides of the aisle, that a resolution carrying the CR to November 22 may not have passed. We do not know that, we did not put it to a vote, but sometimes we take a gauge and we learn where the levels are. The determination was made, because there had been talk not only last week but the week before, that probably the last CR would be on the 18th of this month, a determination was made then that we would have the CR until the next week to allow the appropriators to go back to work, and that is what this rule is all about, is to allow us to have a CR to take us into next week. We will come back next week. I suppose that we will hear the same sort of rhetoric next week as we try to get all of our business done, but I think this is a responsible way to do it. There are some major issues, I might add, that are overhanging the whole Capitol, not just this body. Today, we passed a very historic piece of legislation that, as my colleagues know, we debated for 2\1/2\ days regarding the Iraqi situation. But in line with the Iraqi situation and the potential that we may have to go to war is the issue of homeland security, and we have acted on that. When the President came to the Congress with his proposal for homeland security, there were Members, probably on both sides of the aisle, that said would it not be great if we could create an Office of Homeland Security and have that done by September 11. We did not get it done by September 11, but the House did act on that bill, and that is waiting in the other body, again, for that bill to pass so we can work out whatever differences we may have. I think it would be unconscionable for us as a Congress, in view of what we did today and the action on Iraq, to leave here, to leave here and not pass the homeland security bill. I hope that the other body will work on that. I hope they work extremely hard on that in the next week so that when we come back, we will have to come back next week to at least, if nothing else, respond to the CR. I believe that for us as a Congress one of the things that we need to do is to put the final exclamation point on what I think all Americans want us to do, in lieu of the threat that we have coming from the Middle East and particularly Iraq, is to make sure that our homeland security is as strong as it can be. It can only be stronger, in my view, if the Senate acts on that bill, we can go to conference and work out the differences and pass it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 580 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 122, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes. The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution, and provides one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 122 makes further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003 and provides for funding at current levels. We had agreed in the Committee on Rules that this would be through November 22. At the conclusion of the debate on this, by consent on both sides there will be an amendment offered to change that date of November 22 to October 18, 2000, a week from tomorrow. This measure is necessary in order that all necessary and vital functions of government may continue uninterrupted until Congress completes the work on the spending measures for the next fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass the rule, as we will amend it, and of course the underlying resolution. 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 Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for 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 580 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, each of us comes to Congress for the first time with hopes and dreams of what lies ahead while we serve as Members of this great institution. But surely none of us here today and none who came before us could possibly have wished for the terrible choice facing us at the conclusion of this debate. And make no mistake, it is indeed the most terrible of choices. For, one way or another, once we vote, lives will be lost. That will be the case whether military action against Saddam Hussein is authorized or not. And it goes without saying that none of us takes such a Hobson's choice lightly. Whether we like it or not, a choice must be made, and made without delay. The imminent nature of the threat facing America and the world means that not to decide is to decide. We all know too much about the plans that Saddam Hussein has made for those of us that love freedom and about his ongoing preparations to carry out those deadly plans. Simply put, this is a man who must be stopped. To those who oppose military action in Iraq, we can only ask if we do not stop Saddam, who will? Some say the case is yet to be made that military action is warranted. To them I say, the record is clear and unambiguous, as even the brief remarks highlighted to the Nation by President Bush last night made clear. That debate, Mr. Speaker, is over. Others say we must wait for the United Nations or for the active support of a broad coalition of nations. To them I say, protecting American citizens from the likes of Saddam Hussein is America's responsibility and no one else's. After all, protecting the American people from foreign enemies is the first and most critical function of our Federal Government. It is the very reason the Federal Government was established by our Founding Fathers. We cannot be the world's police force, but there are times when we must stand forcefully against threats to peace, both here and abroad. But far more important, we must never fail to protect the lives of American citizens, citizens who are at risk today from the attacks by the agents of Saddam Hussein. So if we must go it alone, let us not shrink from that duty. We know our troops will not shrink from theirs. But we should not assume, Mr. Speaker, that because some nations have yet to endorse this vital mission that we will be forced to carry this burden alone. Consider for a moment our experience in Kosovo. For the record, I voted against that military action. I did so because I was not convinced that the crisis in the Balkans threatened our American security, and I opposed military action there because I felt it was Europe's problem; and if the Europeans were not willing to support our efforts, it would be wrong to send young American men and women into harm's way on their behalf. But when my side lost that debate, I supported the President, because that is what we do in this country. In hindsight, however, I believe it was correct to undertake that mission in the Balkans, which is now rightly considered a success. I believe experience demonstrates that sometimes what the world wants from America is for America to lead. When the United States did what was right by moving militarily to stop the genocide in Kosovo, the Europeans fell into line and stood up for freedom. They continue to do so today. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the same thing will happen if we act resolutely to remove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Once we act, freedom-loving nations everywhere will welcome the chance to rid this world of this deadly menace, but only American leadership will ensure that he is removed once and for all. Protect American lives, end Saddam's reign of terror and send a message of hope that will echo around the world by supporting this rule and the underlying resolution and giving the President the authority he needs to do what is right.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the gentleman and the points that were made by several Members that have spoken today, it does not do us any good to point fingers; but there are some things that have happened that we cannot ignore that we are dealing with. And one of the things that we are dealing with is that we have not passed a budget in the Congress. That makes it very, very difficult for both Houses to deal with their appropriations process with the same numbers. That is the difficulty. And, again, it does not do any good to point fingers at that, but that is the fact. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, there is no pay-go on this. This is just appropriations only.

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

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