Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota to finish his remark.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Yes, it clarifies, but it adds a very important part. It allows land acquisition.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In due respect, you acknowledged that this could be used to buy additional land with a damage fund, is that correct?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, instead of directly addressing the gulf oil spill tragedy, Congress is voting this week on legislation, the CLEAR Act, that is stuffed full of unrelated items, legislation that will kill American jobs and raise energy prices. Simply put, Democrats are using the oil spill as an excuse to raise taxes and increase spending. The bill imposes a new $22 billion energy tax and has over $30 billion of new unrelated mandatory spending. What the Democrats are doing, Madam Speaker, is rushing ahead of the facts and writing laws before investigations into the spill are finished. Reforms are needed to make American offshore drilling the safest in the world, but that doesn't require tax increases or billions of dollars of unrelated spending and inflicting greater economic pain and lost jobs on Americans. I urge my colleagues to oppose the CLEAR Act.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, because I have expressed my opposition to this because of the process which has been acknowledged by several Members on my side of the aisle, the last time legislation like this was taken up was in the 101st Congress. The bill was introduced, I think, on the first day. There were hearings held in the House on that legislation, and then it went through committee markup. It was amended in committee, sent to the House floor, and it was passed on suspension, but that was after the committee had done its work. It went to the Senate where there were hearings in the Senate. The bill was further amended in the Senate committee. It went to the Senate floor where it was amended again and then came back to the House. The House concurred and amended it one more time. It went back to the Senate, they concurred, and the bill was finally passed. I point out that that process involved in that case both Houses. Both Houses had ideas on how to improve this legislation. But apparently this year, while a similar bill was introduced in the House, there was only a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. We had no hearing on the incidence of crime in our committee, which I think would have probably provided some insight. I only bring this up, Mr. Speaker, to say that the process in passing legislation should involve both Houses and not just one House. But I find it rather curious in this instance where those on the other side are saying the Senate did all the work in its wonderful process. I wonder if everybody on the other side of the aisle feels that way with the other issues that are pending here where we seem to have a problem getting concurrence on major issues like the supplemental budget, for example, and a few other issues that are floating around. Maybe we should just yield all of the wisdom in this House to the Senate, as we have on this bill. Now, I say that somewhat factitiously, obviously, Mr. Speaker, but that is the reason why I feel compelled to make a point of opposing this bill on the process. But we shall see if these other issues are taken up in a like manner by this House, and I won't hold my breath. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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 California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, included in this legislation are a great many important anti- crime, anti-violence provisions that will assist and support Indian tribes across the country. There is considerable bipartisan support for what this bill aims to do, and yet today it is being considered before the House using a process and procedure that elicits opposition. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: The objections that I will express today are focused squarely on the matter in which the House leaders have chosen to have this bill debated. Violence and crime against Indians is a serious problem deserving the attention of this Congress. Such an important issue as this should not be relegated to the suspension calendar where innocuous bills are often given just cursory consideration. The process being used today to consider this legislation is normally reserved for bills such as naming post offices and congratulating sports teams on winning championships. Addressing crimes against Indians deserves to be considered in a much more serious, thorough process. Furthermore, the manner in which this bill was passed in the Senate and being considered in this House is unfair to not only all 435 Members of the House but also to every Indian constituent that they represent. A procedure is being used to consider this bill that denies every House Member the ability to offer a suggestion to improve it, even Members whose Indian constituents may seek such improvements. The bill before us today, H.R. 725, started out as an Indian Arts and Craft Amendments Act of 2010. It was an innocuous 10-page bill with almost no cost whose purpose was to address counterfeit arts and crafts wrongfully marketed as Indian-made product. There was almost no disagreements over the merits and policies of this bill when it first passed this body. The Senate took H.R. 725 and attached the tribal law and order provisions. Again, these are policies that merit action by Congress on which I believe there is a great deal of agreement. Yet the process and manner by which this is being done is generating opposition. When a widely supported arts and crafts bill that is just a few pages in length and which costs nothing is changed by the Senate to run over 100 pages with authorized spending of over a billion dollars, to me, Mr. Speaker, that is simply unacceptable. As I said, I oppose this controversial process and procedure being used on a bill of this magnitude. I opposed such procedures in the past, and I've opposed such a process as the ranking member of this committee, most notably on the omnibus lands bill that passed last year. So I regret that I must stand here today and oppose passing this bill using this process. Indian Country deserves more attention and better treatment than to have this legislation appear on a suspension calendar which is most often used, as I mentioned before, to name post offices. A bill on an issue as important as this should not be heard because it does disrespect to the committees. And it should be given more than 40 minutes of the House's attention. The Members of this House deserve a fair opportunity to improve legislation--not to be totally blocked from offering any suggestions including any sought by their Indian constituents. Again, when a process is used to transform a several-page, no-cost bill on Indian arts and crafts into a 100-page billion dollar bill on violence and crime, then it should not be considered in this manner. It deserves the true attention of all Members of this House. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill under this unfair process. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1053 has been adequately explained by the ranking member of the committee. We are pleased that, despite the difficult economic environment, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund is committed to completing this project without Federal appropriation. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 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, the gentleman from Oklahoma has adequately described the purpose of this bill. I am pleased to lend my support to this bill, which will enable the Muscogee Creek Nation of Oklahoma to acquire land and put it into productive use at no cost to the taxpayer. I also appreciate the sponsor, the gentleman from Oklahoma, and the chairman of the committee, for ironing out the minor technical concerns that were brought up in relation to gaming in the original version of the bill. I think those improvements add to this bill. This is a good bill as it has been amended, and I urge its adoption. 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 support this bill as sponsored by our colleague from Alaska (Mr. Young). It resolves overlapping selections to the same parcels of land that were filed by the State of Alaska and the Bering Straits Native Corporation pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. As we learned during the committee hearing on this bill, there is no opposition to its enactment. So I am pleased to support this bill. 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, the adoption of a constitution by the U.S. Virgin Islands will provide additional autonomy for that territory. However, any constitution that is adopted should not be in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, as noted by the extensive comment provided by the U.S. Justice Department. The House therefore should pass Senate Joint Resolution 33 today to state concerns with the Virgin Islands draft Constitution and urge remedying these issues.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico has adequately explained the purpose of H.R. 4445. As long as the pueblos and the State of Mexico are comfortable with this legislation, I have no objection to passing it today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. At this time, Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to a member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).