Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this legislation takes H.R. 81, the Shark Conservation Act of 2010, which passed this House in March of last year, and adds several other fisheries provisions, all of which I support. My colleague has adequately explained and described what is in this small fisheries package, and I do not object to this legislation. Action by this House will clear these measures for the President. I urge adoption.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Alabama for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, for over 2 years I served on the investigative committee that reviewed allegations and evidence involving Mr. Rangel, and we found substantial reason to believe, which is what our threshold was, that violations occurred. Because the facts of this matter are not disputed, I will not comment on the evidence. But I will, however, comment on the length of the investigation and particularly a statement made by Mr. Rangel regarding the confidential work of the investigative committee. First, on the length of the investigation. Chairman Green and I, when I was the ranking member of the subcommittee, had every intention of completing the investigation before the conclusion of the 110th Congress, but events intervened. In September 2008, Mr. Rangel publicly pledged that he would release in a timely manner a forensic analysis of 20 years of his tax returns and financial disclosures. However, we did not receive the report until May of 2009, 8 months later. Then, in December 2008, serious new allegations involving Nabors Industries resulted in the committee's unanimous decision to expand its jurisdiction. In August of 2009, amendments filed by Mr. Rangel to his financial disclosures raised serious new questions, resulting in the committee unanimously expanding an investigation once again. Finally, after receiving the information long requested from him, the subcommittee completed its work, and sent the Statement of Alleged Violations to him on May 27, 2010. Remember that date. Now, on Mr. Rangel's statement--and here I am going to be very critical, Mr. Speaker. Let me read a statement he made in an article dated June 6, 2010, in Politico--and I'm quoting Mr. Rangel now. ``I would normally believe, being a former Federal prosecutor, that if the allegations involve my conduct as a Member of the House and there is a committee with Republicans and Democrats there, then that you refer to the committee. And if they're so confused after 18 months that they can't find anything, then that is a story.'' Mr. Rangel, in my view, had misrepresented the work of the subcommittee. Why do I say that? Because the comments he made were comments over a week after the subcommittee had transmitted a detailed confidential Statement of Allegations, accompanied with thousands of pages of documents, to him. He knew the contents of the report. Confused? There is no confusion. Everything was in his possession. He knew what the subcommittee produced, and he deliberately misrepresented its contents. In fact, he was aware of the subcommittee's work as early as December 15, 2009, when he testified before the committee. In addition, after he received the SAV, he subsequently met in executive session, at his request, two more times with his counsel. I mention this because there is discussion of process in this matter. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that the subcommittee had treated him unfairly. So, Mr. Speaker, the investigative subcommittee completed its responsibilities to the House and the American people in a timely, professional, and responsible manner. The facts supporting the 11 violations are not disputed. I will vote for the resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, I am very pleased to make a very important announcement: today, a new Republican was born. Our colleague, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, delivered a baby girl this morning at 12:20. The baby weighed nearly 8\1/2\ pounds and is over 20 inches. Both the mother and daughter are doing very well, as is Brian.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding. This legislation is a good piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it. But there are other issues that I think need to be addressed today. There has been bipartisan agreement across this country and in Congress that blanket moratoriums on offshore drilling hurts America when it comes to jobs and energy. Yet the Obama administration has suddenly imposed a moratorium that closes the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the entire Atlantic coast. Madam Speaker, this is the wrong way to respond to the BP oil spill. It hurts our economy and job creation. The answer is not to say America can't figure it out and we should rely on other countries to produce our energy. The right answer is to find out what went wrong and make the effective, timely reforms that ensure that U.S. offshore drilling is the safest in the world. The Deepwater Horizon spill was a terrible tragedy; but this is a great country, Madam Speaker, and we shouldn't allow this single event to disrupt our long-term need to develop an all-of-the-above energy plan that includes the responsible development of our Nation's offshore oil and gas reserves. The administration has taken us in the wrong direction. Instead, we need to be working to keep and create energy jobs here in America.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the process by which Congress conducts the American people's business matters. For a long time, Beltway insiders claimed that Americans don't care about process. It was a self-comforting excuse to conduct business out of the public view and to shut down debate. However, the message from the voters in November's election was unmistakable: It's very clear the American people do care about Congress acting in a transparent, open, and fiscally responsible manner. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, not everyone in Congress has heeded this message, and this is evidenced today by the manner in which the Democrats are seeking to pass this bill. When this bill originally passed the House in March, H.R. 4783 was aimed at addressing income tax benefits to charitable contributions for the relief of victims of disasters in Haiti and Chile. Two weeks ago, this bill emerged in the Senate and looked completely different. The Senate secretly rewrote the bill behind closed doors to create an over 270-page, $5.78 billion omnibus package of largely Indian settlement bills. And the House is now slated to debate this package without a single House Member, Madam Speaker, not one House Member, Republican or Democrat, having the opportunity to offer an amendment to improve it. As I have stated several times on the House floor as well as in the Natural Resources Committee, I believe there is real merit in responsibly settling legitimate legal claims, especially when a settlement reduces the potential risk and costs posed to taxpayers by lengthy, uncertain litigation. It is with this view that I would like to review two pieces in this omnibus package, the Cobell vs. Salazar settlement and the settlements of Indian water rights claims with four tribes. First, in the Cobell case, I agree that the lawsuit has gone on far too long and that it is important for individual Indians to be treated fairly by the Federal Government. Yet, since the proposed terms of the settlement were first publicly revealed the Congress has been petitioned by several Indians and respected Indian organizations expressing real concern with the details of that settlement. It is very disappointing that these very legitimate concerns by directly affected Indians are being dismissed by this Congress. In particular, Madam Speaker, the concerns over the possible payment of over $100 million to lawyers and the handling of damages claims deserves a response by this Congress. The Senate bill makes modifications in both areas, but to be bluntly honest about it, Madam Speaker, the new text is nothing more than window dressing because it can be completely disregarded by the judge. To address one of these concerns, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee yesterday to cap the Cobell attorney fees at $50 million. The Rules Committee blocked the House from voting on this simple amendment. Under this bill, a literal handful of plaintiff attorneys may be paid over $100 million. This equates to one-third of the amount awarded in the settlement for the claims actually litigated by these attorneys. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker. This equates to one-third of the amount litigated by these attorneys. This is simply too high. Some have argued the lawyer fees are just 3 percent of the settlement, but such a calculation would require proposing to pay lawyers a share of funds from cases in which they had absolutely no involvement in representing. It also should be noted that the $50 million cap on fees is not arbitrary. It reflects an amount plaintiff attorneys indicated they can live with under their signed agreement with the government. This legislation should be about fairness to individual Indians, but those who control Congress right now are bending over backwards to protect a $100 million payout to a few lawyers. Let's be clear: every dollar paid to attorneys is a dollar that comes out of the pocket of individual Indians in this settlement. Congress has an obligation to ensure that individual Indians, not lawyers, receive the most money possible, but sadly, in this bill, that is not happening. In regard to the four Indian water rights settlements included in this bill, three of these have previously passed the House. At that time, I expressed my sympathy with such settlements; however, at a time of record deficit spending and record Federal debt, it is the duty of Congress to ask questions to ensure that these settlements are in the best interest of the taxpayers. Over the past year, Congressman Tom McClintock of California, the ranking member of the Water and Power Subcommittee, has sent written inquiries to the Department of Justice asking a basic question, and that basic question is: ``Do these settlement amounts represent a net benefit to taxpayers as compared to the consequences and cost of litigation?'' Very simple question. To date, the Justice Department has regrettably not answered these questions even though they did answer similar questions with respect to the Cobell settlement. It is for this primary reason that I was compelled to oppose those settlements when they passed the House. Now there are four such settlements, and the pricetag for them is $1.23 billion. If Congress is going to spend this much money, it seems to me there's a duty first to show whether this is a fair deal. Without answers from the Justice Department, informed decisions cannot be made, and it is not responsible, in my view, to support this bill. So for all of these reasons I must recommend to my colleagues that they oppose this bill until these reasonable questions can be answered and the clear deficiencies of the settlements are answered. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time as he sees fit.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will yield, I don't recall during the debate that there was a discussion of any level of minimum wage as the gentleman was referring to, but as was pointed out by the gentleman from Iowa, it simply is a matter of supply and demand, and we need to be cognizant of that. So, with that, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will yield, I will just simply say that I find it remarkable that the remedy we are trying to pursue is prolonging an increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. This corrects actions that were done to these territories 3 years ago, and I think this is a very good policy. I wish we could have addressed this earlier rather than 1 day before the law would go into effect. So I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we wind down this session of this Congress, it is probably fitting that this bill is in front of us, because the bill before us today is intended to provide economic relief to the Territories of American Samoa and the Northern Marianas. Specifically, these territories, which are each home to approximately 70,000 people, are appealing to us, to Congress, to forestall congressionally mandated increases in the minimum wage in their territories. It was the Speaker Pelosi-led Congress in 2007 that imposed this job- killing policy. The impacts in these territories have been very real and very severe, especially in American Samoa, which has seen one of its two primary employers, tuna packing plants, shut down after the minimum wage policy went into effect. The next increase in the minimum wage in these territories is slated to take effect at the end of this month, Mr. Speaker. That's tomorrow, Thursday, September 30. So there is indeed an urgent need to act right now. While I agree with the need to spare these territories from the economic havoc that this Democrat Congress has inflicted on them, there are other laws that this Democrat Congress has imposed over the objections, and against the will, of the American people. The most obvious one has been talked about for nearly a year--and that, of course, is the Big Government health care takeover that is threatening, among others, small businesses. It has also caused some seniors to lose their Medicare coverage and we are seeing costs in health care insurance premiums that are rising higher and higher. And the 2001 and 2003 tax relief that is slated to expire at the end of this year, of course, has not been addressed. Thousands of small businesses will be hit with this massive tax increase. In fact, rates will rise on all individual taxpayers. The child tax credit will be cut in half. The marriage penalty return and the death tax would revert back to its high rate. And yet, Mr. Speaker, this Congress has voted to adjourn and leave town without addressing these tax increases. This uncertainty we have seen across the country inflicts a terrible toll on our economy. However, always a silver lining, Mr. Speaker. With this bill, the Democrat Congress admits that they were wrong, that the policies they imposed are costing real people their jobs. I'm glad that they admit here tonight what they have done. But I should say this as, again, we're winding down, Mr. Speaker. Relief shouldn't just come for American Samoa. Americans across the 50 States are losing jobs and hurting because of the actions of this Democrat Congress. They, too, Mr. Speaker, need relief. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Well, I appreciate the gentleman's giving some background on this, and I'm not going to refute that. However, it seems to me that the mere evidence of the remedy that we are proposing here is aimed at the minimum wage, which was passed in 2007, and the remedy addressing the minimum wage would certainly indicate to me that, at least in the real near term, the reason for this is the minimum wage, and so I stand by my remarks, but I know there's always more to it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill that would expand water supplies, help resolve aging infrastructure in the West and protect irrigated farming acreage--all without increasing federal funding. This bill, titled the ``Western Water Supply Enhancement Act,'' recognizes the benefits of long-term regional water conservation planning at the local level by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to provide up to $15 million of already-authorized federal funding to irrigation districts and municipal entities engaged in multi-year, regional, integrated and coordinated water planning. This legislation amends what is commonly known as the ``Secure Water Act'' provision of Public Law 111-11 to ensure that large conservation efforts are eligible. As opposed to the current small-project-by-small- project approach to conservation, this legislation incentivizes more comprehensive, regional approaches throughout the western United States. These regional approaches are a result of the Endangered Species Act, which places additional demands on already limited water supplies originally devoted to agriculture or municipalities. The Endangered Species Act is national in scope, but many of its requirements impact local water districts that bear much of the financial burden. Investing limited federal dollars in regional conservation projects that are the result of federal regulations can relieve this pressure and protect and promote existing water uses. I have always been and will continue to be a strong proponent of new and expanded water storage. Legendary projects, such as the Grand Coulee, Hoover and Glen Canyon dams, are the flagship federal projects that have transformed the American West from the desert to some of the most productive agricultural land in the world. Some in the environmental movement believe that conservation of existing resources is the only way to solve our growing water and power scarcity problems. I beg to differ. Everything, including new storage, regulatory reform and new conservation, has to be on the table for us to resolve our supply problems. The Western Water Supply Enhancement Act would be one tool in that toolbox. It is not the solution, but it is part of the overall solution to help water utilities with limited, already authorized funding in their efforts to provide water to farm families and help promote a safe and affordable food supply for our nation and the world.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been adequately explained by the gentleman from California, and it does enjoy strong bipartisan support.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 714 has been adequately explained by the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, and we have no objections at all to this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, generations ago water and power visionaries came up with the idea of making the West bloom by harnessing our rivers. The Hoover Dam is a legendary example of that vision. When completed in 1935, it was the tallest dam and the largest hydroelectric generator in the world. It literally helped create cities in the arid West and to this day, as my friend from California pointed out, still provides numerous benefits: emissions-free hydropower, drinking and irrigation water, and recreation and flood control. This bipartisan resolution is a fitting honor to the Hoover Dam and to those who had the foresight to create one of the world's best-known engineering marvels. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Mr. Lewis of California for his leadership in bringing this resolution before the House. The recent theft of the Mojave Cross memorial honoring American soldiers who died in World War I is an act that merits our strongest condemnation. So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize Mr. Shannon McDaniel, a long time advocate for water users and agricultural producers in the State of Washington. Mr. McDaniel's much deserved retirement comes after 30 years of service to irrigated agriculture. In his current position as the Secretary/Manager of the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District, Mr. McDaniel manages an irrigation district that provides water to 230,000 acres of irrigated land and 4,000 landowners and farm operators in the southeastern part of Washington State. Mr. McDaniel is an expert and a true leader in the water resources field. He has testified before Congress many times over the course of his career, helping inform both the House and Senate on legislation and other matters important to water users and agricultural producers. His expertise has also been vital to the management and delivery of water to farmers in the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District. Throughout his career, he has developed strong working partnerships at the local, state and federal levels, particularly in his involvement with the Bureau of Reclamation's Columbia Basin Project. Mr. McDaniel serves as a mentor and advisor to many irrigation district managers in the Pacific Northwest. He has selflessly given his time to, and been actively involved with many professional and civic organizations including: the Family Farm Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the Washington State Water Resources Association, Northwest Irrigation Operators, Leadership Tri-Cities and the Washington Agriculture and Forestry Education Foundation. As a result, his peers have bestowed many awards on him throughout his career, including the National Water Resources Association President's Award, the Bonneville Power Administration's Administrator's Excellence Award for Exceptional Public Service, the Washington State Water Resources Association Water Resources Leadership Award and the Northwest Irrigation Operators Distinguished Service Award. Mr. McDaniel's many contributions to Western irrigated agriculture are immeasurable. Although he is retiring from public service, his leadership, dedication and expertise will be valued and appreciated for generations.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have made my points on this. I appreciate the gentleman's input, but I stand by my opening remarks on this just because we haven't got the information. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.