Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I stated in my opening remarks, this is a good bill and I commend the chairman for introducing it. This bill passed on the suspension calendar in the last Congress. Nobody even asked for a recorded vote. So it has broad bipartisan support, yet the underlying issue is--and it's something this Congress should take up in the future--and that is to try to go to the core of preventing forest fires, and that is proper maintenance. There is one amendment that addresses that tomorrow. I think that amendment offered by Mr. Goodlatte will make this bill that much better. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support that. But this is a good bill. It's a start in the right direction. I hear this all the time when we have forest fires in my district--and they happen virtually every year. People want to know: Are there sufficient funds in order to pay for those forest fires? Now we can say that there's a mechanism put in place that will take care of that, and I commend the chairman for his sponsorship of that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And I'm very thankful that you made three of my amendments in order. But as I explained in my remarks regarding the Herger amendment, when you make an amendment in order, you are not ensuring its passage. All you are ensuring is you are going to have a debate on the issue. And so I wonder why you wouldn't, because there were some 20 amendments, why didn't you make them all in order and then we would have a debate on all of them.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, again, to equalize the time, I will reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time. I am the last speaker on this side.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore . The time is equal on both sides. There are 9\1/4\ minutes remaining for the gentleman from Washington, and there are 9\1/2\ minutes remaining for the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, once again can I inquire of the time on both sides.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time again so we can equalize the time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, a member of the Natural Resources Committee (Mr. Bishop).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks, I talked a bit about process, that we seem to have a pattern in this new Congress of taking up bills like this that are not fully vetted. This is just the latest example of that. I hope it is the last, but I am not holding my breath. But I also made an observation in my opening remarks that there are enough individual bills in here to cover enough individual congressional districts that this bill will probably pass, and I suspect that it probably will. I listened very intently to all of my friends on both sides of the aisle that spoke in favor of this bill. In every one of the projects they talked about, at least one way or the other, they suggested that there is a lot of work at home, there is a lot of vetting on that. And I totally agree. When I went to the Rules Committee last night to try to address some of the problems I had, none of those projects that the Members on the other side talked about were what I was talking about with what I had problems with this bill. And that gets us then back to the point that we are making. On those areas where there is disagreement, in the people's House, Mr. Speaker, we should have an opportunity to discuss the differences and then have a vote and find out which side prevails. But all we heard today on debate on this was those that had good projects. I certainly don't argue with that. I mentioned I have three of them in here myself. And so, the process, I guess, is what disturbs me more than anything else. The issue that I had a concern with was the issue of the judge's decision last week on second amendment rights. Nobody talked to defend that. The issue I had was the language that was taken out as to homeland security environmental concerns. Nobody came down to the floor to discuss that or defend that position. I raised concerns about the interpretation of people with disabilities having access to our wilderness areas. Nobody came down to the floor to discuss that. Those are the issues that we should have had a discussion on, not the issues that everybody agreed upon. Had we gone through normal process, that probably would have been vetted. There probably would have been a compromise worked out so that we could have resolved the issues for everybody and a bill like this truly could have passed with well- overwhelming support. But as it is, Mr. Speaker, because it is a bill in which a lot was vetted, in which there are a lot of unanswered questions and unintended consequences--which we see is becoming a pattern in this Congress by taking up bills that don't get a lot of time to be looked at--we will probably come back and have to make some changes. In fact, I would not be surprised that there will be a bill to address the issue of the judge's decision very shortly. I bet probably there will be a bill that will clarify the border security. Well, we could have done that with this lands bill. So, Mr. Speaker, even though I have pieces of legislation in here, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the last time I inquired about time there was a disparity. So I think I will reserve my time until we catch up.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill has gone through quite a process. And although this bill contains several meritorious separate pieces of legislation, and three parts of this omnibus bill are mine, I might add, the negatives in this bill and the failure to consider it under regular order of any kind of open, inclusive process outweigh any reason, in my mind, to go forward. By now, it is well known that Republicans have tried to amend this bill to restore needed House provisions, to remove egregious provisions, and add protections for Americans' second amendment rights. If we had been allowed to offer these amendments, we might have produced legislation almost all Members of the House could support; however, we have been blocked at every opportunity from participating in this process. This package is largely a product of closed-door deal-making. It is designed to ensure that just enough congressional districts receive something to induce support for very controversial measures that underwent no public hearing. The Democrat leadership likes to argue that the full House has acted on more than 70 provisions in this bill. What they don't say is that at least 100 provisions have not been considered by the full House. Mr. Speaker, this may look familiar to some people. It is a large, large bill. Of that, only this amount has been considered by the House. It seems like we haven't learned from what past experience has taught us about trying to put massive bills through the House without having somewhat of an open process. Every motion, procedure, and action of this body has been used to deny the House Republicans any meaningful participation in this bill. The House's failure to study these 100 provisions will have serious consequences, in my view, for an ailing economy. Before the House rejected this package under suspension of the rules, our friends on the other side of the aisle argued that this bill is just what America needs in difficult times. Well, it seems to me the discussion in this new Congress has been around the economy and the need for American jobs. And I think that we can all agree that Americans need jobs. Although H.R. 146 might create a few jobs, these jobs will be mostly limited to bureaucrats putting up ``Do Not Enter and No Access'' signs all over America's public lands. And these few jobs will be far outnumbered by the jobs that would be killed by this bill. Are our memories so short that we have forgotten the energy crisis of just last summer and the role that it played in the economic downturn that we experienced in the second half of last year? Evidently, the Democrat leadership's answer to this is to close off energy-rich public lands forever. This package contains 19 provisions to block American-made energy production, locking away hundreds of millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. More than 3 million acres of public land are permanently locked away from energy development. Now, these are public lands, in a time when our economy is slowing, in a time when we need to try to get the economy going, and no sector could be better I think than the energy sector, especially the American energy sector; yet, this bill goes the opposite way of what I just cited. It is ironic, while Democrat leaders accuse industry of stockpiling Federal oil and gas leases, the truth is that the Federal Government, through the actions of the Democrat majority in this Congress, is stockpiling lands to block energy production. H.R. 146 has many other problems. It could--and I say ``could''-- result in a ban on the use of vehicles and other technology to patrol the U.S. border. It bans recreational access to millions of acres of public lands. Even worse, it denies those dependent on wheelchairs, including disabled veterans, from fully enjoying public lands like everyone else. It fails to address a Federal judge's decision of only last week, when we could have acted on this, that overturned the Bush administration's regulations to protect second amendment rights in parks and wildlife refuges. In other words, to make consistent our laws on public lands. H.R. 146 even hurts civil liberties. It could mean jail time and asset forfeiture for several innocent actions by Americans. Yesterday, we received a letter from a coalition of civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and others, who have grave concerns. And I will quote, ``The bill creates many new Federal crimes using language that is so broad that the provisions could cover innocent human error.'' These organizations also say, and, again, I am quoting, ``Above all, we are concerned that a bill containing new Federal crimes, fines and imprisonment and forfeiture provisions may come to the House floor without first being marked up by the House Judiciary Committee.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill was not even marked up by the House Natural Resources Committee. This bill was not marked up by any committee in the House. This is a bill that came over, again, over 1,100 pages, from the Senate. So this wasn't even marked up, and it has these provisions in it. I just have to ask you, Mr. Speaker, does this sound familiar? None of the several committees with jurisdiction over this bill had any hearing on the troubling provisions within this bill. So, Mr. Speaker, that is not how the people's House ought to work. This House is the House wherein no Member has ever served that was not elected. It is the closest to the people. And when we have concerns, then let's debate those concerns, and let's have a vote. And I understand how that works. We have three buttons, but I generally only press two, yes and no; and, whoever has the most votes prevails. But we have been denied even that basic opportunity in the people's House on this bill. The amendments I offered, for example, last night in the Rules Committee that were rejected, all on a party-line vote, I might add, were bills that only address the most egregious parts. We had a discussion with some of the members of the Rules Committee where they were talking about some of the provisions they worked on were carefully crafted. In fact, the distinguished chairman mentioned that. And I totally agree; I know there are provisions that have been crafted. But for those provisions in the bill that have some dissension, some difference of opinion, then let's discuss that, and then we can have a vote and whichever side prevails, prevails. That is the way the people's House ought to work. But, once again, that process is being denied with this huge bill that is slightly larger, I think, than the stimulus bill, if you want to make some sort of a comparison. But here we are again, today, going through that same procedure. So with that, Mr. Speaker, while there are three provisions in this bill that I have worked several Congresses on, I have to say that this bill on the whole is not worthy of my support, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the total blockade erected by House Democrat leaders to any amendments being offered on this over 1,200- page bill, this $10 billion omnibus lands package. This bill is a monster bill created by the Senate, stacking together more than 170 pieces of different legislation. Over 100 of these bills have never been voted on in the House. The legislative strategy behind the creation of this omnibus bill was to make a bill--apparently like AIG--that is too big to fail. Of course, the bill does contain some worthwhile provisions, including a few that I offered. But if we were wise, if we were wise in this House, our recent experiences with TARP and the stimulus package would serve as a cautionary tale about the need for deliberation before passing gargantuan bills. Last week, for example, Congress loudly expressed indignation about the Wall Street bonuses. But now we learn that restrictions on bonuses were in the original legislation but they were stripped out in the final bill by someone in Congress, specifically in the Senate. And yet here we are again, about to ensure that another far-reaching bill will move through the House, unexamined, and it with no opportunity for amendment. However, there are many areas in this bill that need improvement. I filed, Madam Speaker, just 10 amendments with the Rules Committee on the most serious areas of concern. Let me highlight just a few of them: Ensuring protection of our border security; producing American-made energy that will create new jobs; ensuring public access to Federal lands--and I will talk about that more in a moment--and restoring Americans' second amendment rights while on Federal lands. This was struck down last Thursday by a judge here in D.C. On the need to protect our borders, do we know what effect the enhanced environmental restrictions under this bill will have on border security? No, we do not. The Senate has stricken out an amendment by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona to the National Landscape Conservation System bill that was adopted in this House last April, 414-0. This unanimously approved House amendment stated, ``Nothing in this act shall impede any efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to secure the borders of the United States.'' The Senate stripped this provision from the bill and now that protection is gone. I filed an amendment with the Rules Committee to restore this provision as it reflects the unanimous House position, as well as another amendment to apply this border security protection language to the entire omnibus bill. We must ensure that provisions in this bill do not ban the use of vehicles and other technology to patrol and secure our border. But this rule we are debating doesn't allow any amendments to be debated or voted on by this House. The force behind denying any amendment to the omnibus bill is so great, so great, that the House is apparently willing to fall over and play dead on border security. We don't even know who is responsible for deleting this amendment in the Senate. If this bill becomes law without fixing this border security loophole, I fear we will likely look back in the future and say, Well, we really should have kept that safeguard in and not let the Senate strip it out, just like the Senate stripped out the AIG provision that we railed against last week. The price Americans pay to fill up their cars is starting to go up again, yet H.R. 146 prohibits American-made energy production on Federal lands--production that would create new jobs in these difficult economic times. Our Nation can't afford to shut down the creation of jobs and we can't afford to become even more dependent on foreign oil. The omnibus bill even locks up Federal lands from renewable energy production, including wind and solar. Again, amendments that I filed to address these issues were rejected by the Rules Committee. As written, Madam Speaker, the omnibus bill prevents and bans public access to Federal lands in many ways. The recreational riding of bicycles and motorbikes is prohibited in over 2 million acres of public land. Wheelchair access to wilderness areas is effectively banned as well.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. Madam Speaker, there is another issue. I offered an amendment with Mr. Bishop of Utah dealing with the second amendment rights, and he will speak to that. But I want to tell the House that this is an issue to correct a Federal judge's decision from last week that bans the use of firearms under State law on certain Federal lands. We can rectify that without slowing this bill down at all.