Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I really appreciate my friend from Oregon, Mr. Walden, making his statement because this is just a very, very small part of the complex issues surrounding our national forest lands, and I thought he put it very much into perspective. I too in my State in the last several years have suffered from a number of forest fires. And it gets very, very frustrating that after the fire is put out that the potential harvestable leftover there is subject to litigation and you can never harvest it, which simply means that that timber becomes fuel for the next fire, and yet that is our policy. How that relates to this bill is that the focus, at least on my part, and I acknowledge that it is a very small portion and it's only 400 acres, but we are forever taking those 400 acres out of potential commercial activity. And it just seems to me that this is one part of it that we ought to be at least working and dealing cautiously with, because it's symptomatic of the larger issue of timber management in this country, as so eloquently stated by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden). So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve my time at this point.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I made reference several times in my remarks of the unintended consequences, or alluded to unintended consequences, that happen with legislation like this. And let me give you a real-life example, and again, I alluded to it in my remarks. I'm talking specifically about the Stehekin town at the end of Lake Chelan in my district. This is a town that has no roads going into it. The only way you can get there is by boat, up the Lake Chelan, or by an airplane that can land on the lake. This is a gateway to a wilderness area, and this wilderness designation was made some 20 years ago. There's a road that goes back about 20 miles to hit the wilderness area. This is an economic driver for the town of Stehekin. Well, unfortunately, the road is in a wilderness area, and this is the unintended consequence, because you get a lot of snowfall in the Cascades, and this road gets washed out occasionally. It got completely washed out several years ago, and the obvious solution to that is to repair the road so that you can still have access to the wilderness area. But you have the one problem in this particular case, and that is, the road is in a wilderness area, which means there's no wiggle room. And so, it is literally taking an act of Congress, Mr. Speaker, to rebuild a dirt road to give access to a wilderness area. Now, I'm sure that that wasn't intended when this bill was passed by the Congress before I got here in the late 1980s. I'm sure that that was not the case, and yet, we passed the bill out of the House, I'm very pleased, in a bipartisan note. But just think about this principle. This is a road that gives you access to a wilderness area, but it happens to be on wilderness land. An act of nature washes out that land, and it takes an act of Congress, for goodness sakes, to make it whole again so you have economic activity. Several Members, several of my colleagues from Oregon have talked about the great economic activity that this designation is going to have. I hope they're right. But they should take into account a real life example in a small part of a State just north of them, namely, what's happened to the community of Stehekin at the top end of Lake Chelan in my district, because these are the real-life happenings and the unintended consequences that happen when you give total authority to the Federal Government. I hope it doesn't happen on the Molalla River, I truly don't. But I suspect, as I said earlier in my remarks, that that very well may be the case. And so I think that story is worth retelling, Mr. Speaker, because it's not told enough. The town of Stehekin is a very small town, and the issue isn't done yet. That bill is in the Senate. I certainly hope it passes. But I might mention one other irony. Those that are opposed, that were opposed to rebuilding that road, they don't live in Washington State. They live in other areas of the country. Why? Because you cannot damage wilderness. Even though this happens to be an economic lifeline, I'm sure it was the unintended consequences that they're talking about. So, Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise, as I said in my opening remarks, to oppose this designation, not because the gentleman from Oregon, the sponsor of the bill, is doing what he thinks his constituents want. I respect that. I really do. I just have experienced firsthand enough in my time in Congress to see that this leads to unintended consequences, and there are better ways to management and probably to provide economic activity surrounding the Molalla River than going this far. The second point is, we could have accommodated the gentleman from Oregon's concern about taking this timber matrix out with a simple land exchange. We're only talking about 400 acres. Yet, it was denied twice: once in committee and once by the Rules Committee. So those 400 acres, albeit small, are locked up forever. But, as I said, 400 acres today, maybe it will be 6,000 acres in the future. There's certainly been thousands of acres in the past. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose this bill. I yield back my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding an earmark I received as part of H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agency Appropriations Act of 2010. This earmark in the Environmental Protection Agency's State and Tribal Assistance Grant Program is for $500,000 to the City of Rock Island, P.O. Box 99, Rock Island, WA 98850. This project would construct a wastewater collection and treatment system for the City of Rock Island and a portion of the unincorporated area of Douglas County. More than five years of technical study have demonstrated the need for a central sewer system to address the high risk of drinking water contamination that exists as a result of failing on-site septic systems, inadequate soils and a high water table. Design of the system is complete, and the project is ready for construction.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, the Democrat health bill is not about lowering costs or making health care more affordable, it's about government control and higher spending. It's about a government takeover of our health care system. It follows that it's about the Federal Government deciding how, where and when you get your health care. At its most basic, the bill creates a government-run health insurance system that will end private health insurance options and, in doing so, will force Americans to purchase coverage only from a government- controlled program. The Federal Government would therefore decide which health care plans are acceptable. A Federal commissioner would decide which health care benefits are offered and how much is to be charged for those benefits. The proposed Medicare cuts would eliminate options for seniors and place recipients under a Medicare without choices, choices like the current Medicare Advantage program. In page after page of this massive bill, Federal health programs are expanded while private health care is restricted. In section after section, personal health care choices dwindle, and Federal control over decisions that should be made by you and your doctor increase. One of the most striking examples, Madam Speaker, begins on page 481. The Democrat bill arbitrarily bars doctors from opening new doctor- owned hospitals, including the 124 hospitals that are currently under construction, and it severely restricts the existing 235 doctor-owned hospitals like the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center in my district from expanding their services. The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a top-rated hospital that serves a rural underserved area. It was founded in 1940 by three doctors and today is owned by 150 doctors, each with an equal share. The medical center employs 1,500 people; serves a population of a quarter of a million people in an area the size of the State of Maryland; and treats 150,000 patients a year, half of whom are Medicare and Medicaid recipients. Democrats, though, have decided that doctors cannot own hospitals regardless of the quality of care or degree of need. Under the Democrat bill, doctor-owned hospitals would face unprecedented reporting requirements, punishing new restrictions and strict limitations on their ability to expand. In fact, with the exception of a small handful of facilities selected by Democrat leaders, hospitals that are owned by doctors are barred from growing, barred from adding even a single hospital bed ever. Madam Speaker, something is very, very wrong when this Congress is blocking access to health care, banning new hospitals and blocking the growth of top-quality facilities because they are simply doctor owned. But now the position of Democrats in charge of writing health policy in this House is very, very clear: They want to outlaw all doctor-owned hospitals, period. Madam Speaker, we are headed down a very dangerous road when the Federal Government is getting in the business of deciding who can and who cannot own a hospital. But I am convinced that this is only the start. A Democrat Ways and Means subcommittee chairman was quoted this week as saying, ``Get your toe in, get your knee in, get your shoulder in, and pretty soon you're in the room.'' This is a blunt admission that if Democrats succeed with this government takeover, those in Washington, D.C. will already have bigger plans to seize even more control of every American's health care. Madam Speaker, I don't think that's where America wants to go. There is a better solution, and it doesn't involve penalizing hospitals, raising taxes or cutting Medicare. The plan I support focuses on lowering costs by expanding health care choices and tools to help families save, making it easier for small businesses to afford and offer health care; ending lawsuit abuse; and, Madam Speaker, more importantly, protecting the doctor-patient relationship from government intrusion.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, as Ranking Republican of the House Natural Resources Committee, I am today introducing legislation to protect American taxpayers and existing customers of the Western Area Power Administration, WAPA. It is called the ``The American Taxpayer and Western Area Power Administration Firm Power Customer Protection Act.'' I'm pleased that Tom McClintock, the Ranking Republican on the Water and Power Subcommittee, is joining me in sponsoring this bill. Earlier this year, the Democrat Majority passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is better known as the stimulus spending bill. Many of the new programs in this law were never debated beforehand and were inserted behind closed doors without transparency or an opportunity for Members of Congress or the American people to review and scrutinize them. Included among these new programs was WAPA's Transmission Infrastructure Program's borrowing authority. This new $3.25 billion borrowing authority allows the WAPA Administrator to provide loans to develop new transmission aimed solely at integrating renewable energies. As some envisioned, the loans would be mainly given to private wind and solar developers for transmission investments. This new borrowing authority is quite unlike the Bonneville Power Administration's, BPA, longstanding borrowing authority, which can be used for integrating all generation sources, as well as for fish and wildlife mitigation and conservation efforts. Madam Speaker, there is another key difference between the two borrowing authorities and it's one that my legislation directly addresses: the risk of a bailout funded by American taxpayers. The actual WAPA statute describes it best: ``If, at the end of the useful life of a project, there is a remaining balance owed to the Treasury under this section, the balance shall be forgiven.'' This means that American taxpayers will foot the bill for any outstanding balances on a project that cannot be repaid. This would be similar to a homeowner defaulting on a 30 year loan and having the bank pick up the remaining balance, except that the taxpayer would end up paying for the bad investment. BPA, which proudly boasts about repaying its debts with interest and ahead of schedule, does not have a similar taxpayer bailout provision in its borrowing authority. I might also add that the Tennessee Valley Authority repays its debt with interest as well. To date, WAPA has announced one project under the borrowing authority: a wind transmission project owned by a Canadian company. Under the taxpayer bailout provision, if this project failed, then the American taxpayer would have to bail out a foreign company for up to $161 million. It is also important to recognize that some of WAPA's existing customers, who are theoretically not impacted by this program, remain concerned that they will now bear some costs even if they do not benefit due to the lack of defined rules and regulations to govern the borrowing authority. It's critical that the principle of ``beneficiaries pay'' is maintained and not undermined. It is not the responsibility of those who may not benefit from a project, or the federal taxpayers, to fund such projects. Those who build and benefit from a project must bear its full costs. For these reasons, I am introducing this legislation to amend WAPA's borrowing authority to both add protections for existing customers and to eliminate the taxpayer bailout provisions. I hope for this action on this bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, health care reform should be focused on lowering the cost of health care and health insurance. Yet Democrats are pushing a bill that would increase costs by having the government take over our Nation's health care system. Under the Democrat bill, seniors will be forced to pay more for fewer Medicare benefits. Families will pay more out of their pockets for health care, and it will be more expensive for small businesses to offer health benefits. On top of these higher individual premiums and prices, the Democrat bill increases government spending by over $1 trillion in the first decade. We need to lower costs and give families and individuals more choices, not increase costs and restrict choices through a government takeover. One of the clear ways to reduce costs is to end lawsuit abuse. Frivolous lawsuits drive up the cost of health care for everyone. Yet on this issue Democrats are on the side of lawsuits. Mr. Speaker, legislation that increases spending over a trillion dollars while increasing the costs paid by seniors and families is legislation that I cannot support.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I wish to record that had I been present I would have voted in favor of H.R. 1168, the Veterans Retraining Act; H. Res. 291, Recognizing the crucial role of assistance dogs in helping wounded veterans live more independent lives; and S. 509, to authorize a major medical facility project at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Walla Walla, Washington. The late notice by the Majority of this week's schedule made it impossible to secure a flight back from my district in time for these votes. S. 509 is of particular importance, as it authorizes $71.4 million to design and construct a new veterans outpatient clinic and renovate existing facilities at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center at Walla Walla, Washington State. The Walla Walla facilities serve 70,000 veterans in Oregon, Idaho and Washington State, including many in my own Congressional district. This bill has my strong support and I commend my colleagues for supporting it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats, contrary to what we have been hearing, are behind closed doors, writing a sweeping change to our health care system. Unfortunately, a government takeover of health care, as we know, would raise taxes, eliminate choices, fine small businesses, and cut Medicare by more than $500 billion. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the proposed cuts would result in millions of seniors losing their current plan, including 100,000 in my State of Washington. I have spoken with many hospitals in my district who say that Medicare cuts would have serious consequences on them. We need reform, Mr. Speaker, but Americans deserve better than secret deals. I support proposals to make purchasing insurance more affordable, expand health savings accounts, help small businesses afford their benefits and end lawsuit abuse. It's time to begin open, transparent, bipartisan work on legislation that actually increases choices and lowers cost.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2806 is a limited bill that allows for continued public access to the North Cascades National Park from the community of Stehekin, Washington. Stehekin, located at the western end of Lake Chelan, is the gateway to the North Cascades National Park and is accessible only by boat, floatplane, or a multi-day hike. From the town of Stehekin, the Stehekin Valley Road has long allowed residents and visitors to access some of the most beautiful scenery in the North Cascades in what is now the Park's Stephen Mather Wilderness. At the July 30, 2009 hearing before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, the Subcommittee heard testimony from local officials on how flood damage to the upper Stehekin Valley Road has limited public recreational access to the North Cascades National Park Complex. This reduced access has been particularly painful for the small, tourist-dependent community of Stehekin which serves as the gateway to the Park. During legislative consideration of the Park's creation in 1988, Congress determined that Stehekin Road would remain outside of the wilderness boundary to ensure continued public access. Otherwise, no cars, mountain bikes, or other mechanized vehicles would have been allowed to transport area residents or Park visitors into the wilderness areas in the center of the Park north of Stehekin. As the Stehekin River has shifted and damaged the road, the Park Service has been unable to rebuild the road out of the path of the river because of the narrow road corridor in the original Park designation. H.R. 2806 would simply allow the Secretary limited authority to adjust the road corridor out of the path of the Stehekin River, with no net loss of land to either the Park or the Stephen Mather Wilderness. These changes and road rebuilding would still be subject to review and comment under the National Environmental Policy Act. This is a limited bill that protects the public access into the Park Complex promised at the Park's creation, and I encourage my colleagues to give their support to H.R. 2806 and the Stehekin community.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, we must get serious about producing more American-made energy in order to prevent skyrocketing energy and gas prices in the future, grow our economy and protect our national security. There is widespread and bipartisan agreement that we must move toward a cleaner, cheaper, more diverse energy system. That means expanding solar, wind, hydrogen fuel cell, biomass and other new energy sources, more hydropower, more nuclear plants, and tapping into our nation's oil and gas reserves. My district in Central Washington state is home to massive hydropower dams, the only nuclear power plant in the region, the Pacific Northwest National Lab which is conducting world-class energy research, wind farms, and solar. There is no question that solar power has a key role to plan in our energy future. The federal government should encourage and incentivize all types of solar power production and research. We must make tax credits for solar permanent and we must open up new opportunities for solar on our federal lands. It is with regret, today, that I cannot vote for H.R. 3585. I have long-supported solar energy--but it need not require an expansion of the federal government and $2.25 billion dollars at a time when Congress is already spending more than ever and our nation is facing historic levels of debt. In addition to the cost of this legislation, I am concerned that it does not provide a level playing field for all types of solar technologies. The federal government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. I am a cosponsor and a supporter of H.R. 2846. This bill represents an all-of-the-above energy bill. Under the bill, a portion of federal government's revenue from offshore drilling would be used to provide funding for renewable energy programs such as solar, biomass, hydropower, clean coal, wind and others. In fact, over $8 billion would be directed to renewables in the first 10 years at zero cost to taxpayers. As we move forward, I am committed to finding new opportunities to encourage all solar technologies whether it is through research support, federal land options, tax incentives and other means.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I stood up and asked my dear friend from California (Mr. Farr) to yield, and he said he didn't have time to yield, because I wanted to point out something that he had said and to clarify at least what I think is his interpretation of what he was saying. He was saying that these water recycling bills are a 25/75 match, and that's what the bill says. There's no requirement, however, in this bill for those recipients of these Federal dollars to repay these Federal dollars. On the other hand, I come from central Washington, the Columbia Basin Project, Bureau of Reclamation area, irrigated by Grand Coulee Dam, and while they were built by the Federal Government, it's true, those monies have to be paid back by those irrigation districts. We don't get a 25 percent cut or a 50 percent cut. So I just wanted to point that out. We're not talking about apples and oranges, no pun intended on that. So, Mr. Speaker, as I had mentioned earlier, the reason that I reluctantly oppose this bill is because of what it does not do. And of course what it does not do is to provide for an opportunity to address a very, very serious economic problem in the San Joaquin Valley of California. As I mentioned on the rule, there were 23 Democrats that supported Republicans on this. This would indicate to me, I would hope, that there is growing support for having this addressed in a manner in the House, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. I certainly hope that that is the case. And if opposition from me and others is a way to get to that point, I will be very, very proud of that. But with that, Mr. Speaker, I have to stand up and reluctantly oppose this bill for the many reasons I said in my previous remarks. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself another 30 seconds. But we have been denied that. I would just hope that there will be some opportunity later on for us to revisit that and have these potential solutions that were brought forward by my colleagues that live in these areas in a bipartisan way to be debated.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the San Joaquin Valley, California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking Republican on the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. McClintock.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the southern San Joaquin Valley, Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, reference was made as to why we are debating this bill on the floor, which obviously the concept of this bill brings forward water recycling and has broad support in this House. I certainly support that concept. But the inference was made that the only reason we are debating this is because of one Member--they didn't say where he is from, but I assume he is from California--who has been very, very outspoken about the economic disaster that is going on in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that that individual is defending what he thinks is right for his constituents, and he is doing all the right things within the rules of this House to bring this issue forward so that we can have a debate. The inference was also made by those remarks that this was partisan in nature. Well, I would just remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that on the rule, bringing this bill to the floor of the House had bipartisan opposition. As you know, when there are rule votes, they are generally along party lines. Yet, Mr. Speaker, 23 Democrats voted against this rule. Now, I don't know the motivation of all of them, but I would certainly hope, and I would guess that they probably voted ``no'' because they felt this issue was worthy of debate. And, I might add, of those 23, four of them are from the Natural Resources Committee, in which this bill passed out of by unanimous consent, but there was some discussion in the subcommittee on the issue, and the cost, as Mr. McClintock pointed out so well. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make this point: if somebody is accused of defending their constituents and that is done in a negative way, that is not what this House is all about. Every Member should be doing everything they can to defend their constituents. So the debate on this really, I believe, is evolving into a bipartisan debate to have a debate on the underlying issue.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose this bill. I say reluctantly, because I and colleagues on my side of the aisle do support water recycling. We think it's a valuable tool for providing water to our farmers and communities across America, just as water storage is, Mr. Speaker, a tool for providing water for our communities. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat sponsor of this legislation, and the manager of this bill, the gentleman from California, has said previously, and is correct, that Republican water recycling bills have passed this House. That's correct. The question is, then, why is this bill different? And the answer, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. When there is an economic disaster occurring in the San Joaquin Valley of California, when man-made and government-enforced drought has dried up farm after farm in that valley, with 40,000 workers unemployed, standing in food lines and being ignored by the leadership in this House, when solutions to bring water and relief to this area have been blocked and stymied again by the leadership in this House, then a point comes, Mr. Speaker, when Members of this House have to say enough is enough. The water recycling bill before us benefits the San Francisco Bay Area. The Speaker of the House represents the city of San Francisco, and one of her top deputies, who happens to be the sponsor of this bill, is also from the Bay Area. This bill provides millions of Federal taxpayer dollars for the Bay Area while tens of thousands of their fellow citizens suffer economic devastation just a few hours south and inland in the San Joaquin Valley. All that was sought by the two Republican Members from the San Joaquin Valley, with the express support, I might add, of one of their Members from California in the same area on the Rules Committee, was to a have a chance, just a chance, to make their case on the House floor and to vote for a solution to this disaster in the San Joaquin Valley. Mr. Speaker, they didn't ask that the amendments that they wanted made in order be passed. They just asked for the ability to be heard so they could persuade others to perhaps vote with them. That is all any of us could ask. Mr. Speaker, that chance has been denied. It has been blocked. Their amendments were deemed nongermane. It has been labeled as irrelevant to the bill before us. Mr. Speaker, might does not make right when it comes to who controls the House because what the leadership is unwilling to do is potentially provide relief to those that have been hurt by this man-made drought in the San Joaquin Valley and the policies of this Federal Government. It has been stated, also, that the drought disaster is a California issue. The implication of that is that this is not of concern to other Americans. Mr. Speaker, that simply is wrong. What is happening in the San Joaquin Valley of California does affect all Americans. If this water recycling bill to benefit the Bay Area is worthy of consideration by the representatives of all 50 States in this House, then so is the drought disaster issue. Mr. Speaker, if this can happen in California, then what of the farmers in the central Washington district that I represent? Hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland are irrigated in my district with water delivered by Federal pumps and from Federal reservoirs. I do not ever want to see the day that a government-enforced drought devastates these communities that I represent. This isn't the first instance when Federal policies have threatened to cut off water to tens of thousands of people. Earlier in this decade, the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was threatened with the loss of its water supply due to the presence of the silvery minnow. Congress acted rightfully to provide relief to New Mexico when the House and the Senate, in a bipartisan way, voted for a remedy to Albuquerque's problem. Today, unfortunately, there is no relief to come to the San Joaquin Valley as relief did come to those in Albuquerque. And the relief that is being sought, I might add, Mr. Speaker, is not a bailout. The amendments that were offered simply were a plea, and it was not a plea for stimulus funding or for any money. It was simply for an opportunity to allow the Federal Government to provide for water flow. It didn't cost anything. But yet it was not given an opportunity. So, Mr. Speaker, if the House is going to provide authorization to spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to provide recycled water to the Francisco Bay Area, then this House should be voting on legislation that brings relief to Californians suffering from this devastating man- made drought. Mr. Speaker, it's on these grounds, even though I support the concept of water recycling, it's on these grounds that I have to stand here and urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, a former member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Calvert.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this rule. As a former member of the Rules Committee, and currently as the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, I want to address several arguments that have been made that try to justify blocking amendments to provide relief for tens of thousands of suffering people suffering an economic disaster in the San Joaquin Valley as a result of a man-made and government-enforced drought. First, I want to specifically dispel the notion that allowing the House to vote on relief to these suffering communities wasn't possible because amendments were nongermane. Mr. Speaker, it is entirely within the power of the House Rules Committee to allow debate on any amendment that it wishes and, conversely, to shut down debate on any amendment they do not want to see discussed on the House floor. The Rules Committee does, can, and regularly does, waive the germaneness rule. It simply refused to do so on this matter because the Democrat leadership of this House doesn't wish to have this matter, this matter of the man- made drought in the San Joaquin Valley, debated or discussed on the House floor. Any notion, any notion, Mr. Speaker, that they couldn't allow these amendments even 10 minutes of debate time followed by a vote is simply not true. So let's be clear about what we're debating here. The underlying bill relates to Federal water recycling projects in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. The amendments not made in order relate to Federal water supply and a man-made drought in the San Joaquin Valley in California. This is hardly a case of mixing apples and oranges. The truth is that the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee chose to hand a shiny red apple to the San Francisco Bay Area and give a giant raspberry to the people in the San Joaquin Valley. The other argument I wish to address and dispel is that the drought in California is an issue only for those in California to resolve. Mr. Speaker, if this House can debate and vote on a bill to provide millions of taxpayer dollars, Federal taxpayer dollars, for water projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, then this House can certainly debate and vote on providing relief to farmers and farmworkers that are denied Federal water by Federal lawsuits and Federal policies, again, in the San Joaquin Valley of California. This isn't a case of having your cake and eat it, too. It's a matter of water for San Francisco and none for the San Joaquin Valley. Lastly, to the argument this is a California issue for Californians to resolve, I will note that the votes in the Rules Committee to block the amendments from being heard were by a margin of six ``no'' and five ``yes.'' All four Republicans voted to allow the amendments to be heard on the floor, as did Mr. Cardoza from California, and a Democrat, but not one single one of Mr. Cardoza's Democrat colleagues joined him. We were told this is a California matter, and yet relief for the San Joaquin Valley is denied because of the votes of Democrats on the Rules Committee from New York, Massachusetts, Florida, Maine, and Colorado, who all voted ``no'' to block discussion of these amendments on the House floor. The arguments of germaneness and it's a California only matter are simply excuses being used to try to hide the fact that the Democrat leaders who control this House don't want to allow a vote on solutions and provide relief to the tens of thousands of people suffering in the San Joaquin Valley. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unfair rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.