Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time, which is 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the pertinent part of this amendment is already in the bill, and that speaks to the ballot; the other two are really meaningless. Frankly, this amendment does not even need to be considered today; but if it's a cover, then it's a cover, and let's call it what it is. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have 1 minute left and I have the right to close; is that correct?

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In response to my good friend from West Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the committee, yes, it's true, I voted for the bill, but there is always more to the rest of the story. In my opening remarks, I expressed doubt that this is the proper way to go. I expressed those doubts, but I know that this issue is something that needs to be resolved. I was hoping when it got to the floor of the House it might have an open rule so it could be perfected, but I wanted to find out more about this issue, and I found out more about these issues and why now I believe I should be in opposition to it. I called Governor Fortuno last Friday and told him of my decision on that, and he was very gracious when we had that conversation. Now, as to this amendment, as I had mentioned, I think the Velazquez amendment accomplishes what I would want to accomplish in my amendment. So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Velazquez amendment when we have the rollcall. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have my amendment withdrawn.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. But there will be a rollcall vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I understand that. The chairman said that the amendment passed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the debate here has centered largely on the procedure by which citizens of Puerto Rico should, if they desire, become a State. I am of the opinion and what this amendment does is to state very specifically that the citizens of Puerto Rico have within their power to make that determination. I think that is the proper way to go. But I also believe that the amendment that just passed by a voice vote, the Velazquez amendment, accomplishes the same thing. So I don't want to be redundant, and in a moment, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask if I can have this amendment withdrawn. But before I do that, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order under the rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, as the House considers the bill on Puerto Rico's future, this motion to recommit provides Members of the House an opportunity to register their views on questions of English as an official language and on the importance of protecting Americans' Second Amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, two amendments were filed with the Rules Committee to directly address the issues of the English language and Second Amendment gun rights. Both were blocked by the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee. What that means, of course, is that Members have no opportunity to debate this issue. Making an amendment in order does not guarantee, obviously, the outcome. Yet we are even denied the opportunity of English as the official language and Second Amendment rights. So this motion to recommit simply combines these two issues in the motion to recommit. Let me explain specifically what the motion will do. It will amend the description of ``statehood,'' which will appear on the plebiscite ballot authorized under this bill, to state: one, English will be the official language of the State, and all official business will be conducted in English; two, laws will be in place that will ``ensure residents have the Second Amendment right to own, possess, carry, use for self-defense, store assembled at home, and transport for lawful purposes, firearms and in any amount ammunition, providing that such keeping and bearing of firearms and ammunition does not otherwise violate Federal law.'' This MTR simply expresses the views on these two important issues. It has been asserted during the debate that providing for English as the official language is something unprecedented or that it is something which hasn't been talked about or whatever. That is simply not true, because four States were admitted to the Union, and part of that admittance was a requirement that English would be the official language. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty straightforward motion to recommit, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), and I understand that he also gets 1 minute from the gentlelady from New York.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In my opening remarks, I stated the reasons why I had a problem with this procedure, and I did not mention the option that you talked about, association. I just wonder if the gentleman knows or maybe can help me, where did that come from?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. This bill has Congress blessing statehood before Puerto Rico even expresses its will. This bill isn't needed for Puerto Rico to hold a self-determination vote on what they desire of their future political plans. Puerto Rico can conduct a vote right now, just like they have done three times previously. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to deviate from the precedent of Alaska, Hawaii, and other States where those territories self-initiated a communication to Congress and Congress responded by making them States. So, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this unfair rule for those reasons. I think that Republicans and Democrats on this important issue ought to have as much time as we had in 1998 to debate this issue. With that, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, as today's debate begins on this very important issue, where opposition is obviously on both sides of the aisle, there are two basic points I wish to make: first, to express the fundamental unfairness of this rule for debate, as the previous speaker just pointed out; and second, to explain why the underlying bill violates this Nation's established precedents when it comes to admitting States in the Union. First, this rule is unfair to both Republicans and Democrats. It is astonishing to me to see how the Democrat leaders are denying the amendments proposed and offered by Members of their caucus. Senior Democrat Members are being limited. Their amendments were blocked. Their ability to speak and engage in debate is being restricted. And for what possible reason, Mr. Speaker? By what justification is this necessary and how is it fair? In 1998, when the House last debated a similar Puerto Rican bill, there was an open rule, as Mr. Gutierrez mentioned. That rule was supported by both the Republican chairman and the ranking Democrat at that time, and it resulted in a full, all-day debate on this very important issue. So what is wrong with an open rule and a fair debate in 2010? This bill isn't about naming a post office; it is a bill that Congress is asking Puerto Rico if they want to become the 51st State. This is an important issue. Amendments of importance, of ensuring Second Amendment rights by Puerto Rico if it becomes a State were blocked. Amendments to address the issue of English as an official language, that too was blocked. Mr. Speaker, this rule should be defeated. Actually, the previous question should be defeated. And if the House is going to consider this bill, it should do so under an open process. Second, the reason why such a thorough debate is necessary is that this bill is a dramatic departure from past procedures by which a State has sought and been admitted into the Union. Look at Alaska, look at Hawaii just in the last century. Look at numerous other States. They all held local referendum on the question of their desire to become a State. When a strong majority expressed their desire to become a State, the results of those individual referendum were communicated to Congress, and it was then that Congress responded to those referendum. In this bill that process is exactly backwards. This bill is asking if Puerto Rico wants to become a State.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in 2008, when gas prices reached $4 a gallon, Republicans took to this House floor demanding that Congress take action. The good news for Americans is that Congress responded by lifting the ban on offshore drilling, opening up over 500 million new acres to energy production. The bad news is that immediately when President Obama took office, he completely halted this potential production. Now his Interior Secretary has announced a new Obama moratorium, a delay on leasing any new offshore areas for drilling until 2012. That means that Americans will have to wait 4 years for a plan to open up new areas for offshore energy production. That means that no new drilling will occur during President Obama's entire term in office. And this means that Americans will lose out on new jobs while this administration keeps dragging its feet. Mr. Speaker, it is time to end the delays and say ``no'' to the Obama moratorium and implement the 2010 plan to expand offshore drilling.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it's past time for this Congress to stop jamming through massive expansions of the federal government and instead support commonsense reforms that will lower health care costs and increase choices for all Americans. A bipartisan coalition in Congress and a vast majority of the American people today rejected the premise that government knows best how to run our American health care system. While it was impossible to stop the liberal majority from pushing through their government takeover of health care, House Republicans will lead the effort to repeal this legislation and replace it with real solutions to improve our health care system, without driving our nation deeper into debt. House Democrats today went around the regular lawmaking process and pushed through their government takeover of health care using a closed approach that blocked consideration of any Republican amendments. Improvements must be made to our health care system, but I reject the premise of this bill that government knows best how to run our health care. I am disappointed that House Democrats voted for the very backroom deals and political payoffs that the American people are so tired of and for a massive health care plan that most Americans simply don't want. This bill is about more spending, higher taxes, and more government control, all without lowering health care costs. This Congress is going in exactly the wrong direction by forcing every American to purchase government-approved insurance only, cutting Medicare, limiting who can own and operate hospitals, and eliminating health care choices. There is something very wrong when this Congress is passing a bill that arbitrarily restricts the ability of doctor-owned hospitals like the Wenatchee Valley Medical and its clinics to grow, rather than working to expand access to health care in areas like Central Washington. In the past 14 months, Democrats have given the federal government control of our banks, our car companies, our loans for college, and now our health care. I rejected those bills, and I oppose this government takeover of health care because I'm deeply concerned about the consequences that will be felt by every American. I am committed to doing everything possible to undo this bill and get to work on commonsense reforms that will actually lower health care costs and increase choices.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed piece of legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, due to an unexpected illness I missed two votes on Thursday, March 18, 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 129 and 132. I would further like to note that I am a cosponsor of Mr. Griffith's resolution, H. Res. 1190, requesting an up or down vote on the Senate health care bill.