Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. And I have two speakers, including me.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds. And we are considering a package of over 170 bills, with just seven seconds to debate each bill's cost. So I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to oppose passage of this bill under suspension of the rules and insist on the ability to consider under an open process that allows for amendments. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to consider the Senate Omnibus Lands bill by suspending the rules of the House. Let us be very clear about what's happening on the House Floor this morning. For weeks and months, Democrat leaders in the Senate and the House, and outside special interest groups, have repeatedly insisted that the House must pass this massive Senate bill without changing a single word or it will be doomed to Senate purgatory and no further action will be taken. This was the justification given for why every Representative in this House should be blocked from offering their ideas and amendments to improve or change this over 1,200 page bill. Yet this morning, Democrat Leaders are using the special suspension process to amend the Senate bill and simultaneously block every other Representative from offering an amendment. The Senate's rubicon of not changing one word has now been crossed. S. 22 has been amended. So then why isn't the House allowed to consider additional amendments except the one approved by Democrat leaders. If we change one part of the bill, then this House deserves the opportunity to consider it in an open and fair manner. Instead, Democrat leaders are shutting down everyone from offering amendments, including Democrats who've been publicly outspoken about wanting to remove entire provisions from S. 22 that they strongly oppose. I urge these Democrats and all House Members to oppose this bill under suspension and demand a fair, open process of debate on this bill in the House. The suspension process is reserved for noncontroversial bills with little cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, other bills on suspension today include supporting the goals of International Woman's Day, urging the President to designate 2009 as the Year of the Military Family, and supporting the designation of Pi Day. Yet, this Senate Omnibus Lands Bill costs over 10 billion dollars, and consists of over 170 individual bills being amassed into a 1,200 page monster piece of legislation. This is an extreme abuse of the process for considering bills under suspension of House rules. Under suspension of the rules, the House has only 40 minutes to debate the bill. I've been recognized for 20 of those minutes. With over 170 bills in this Omnibus, that allows just 7 seconds . . . 7 seconds . . . to debate each bill. And of these 170 plus bills, some 100 of them have never been passed by the House. Any notion that this is just a packaging of bills already passed by the House is absolutely false. I recognize what I have just spoken about is inside baseball, legislative process arguments, yet it is important for the American public to understand the heavy-fisted manner in which this House is being run. It's also important for all Representatives to understand that this bill has now been amended and that we should have the opportunity to consider other changes to it. For every Member of the House, there may be a page or two in this 1,200 page bill that does something positive in your district. In fact, three separate pieces of legislation that I authored were attached to this package. However, I am more concerned about the other bills that have not been closely examined or debated by the House. This massive bill was written behind-closed-doors with the purpose of creating a package that tries to force individual Members to vote for it in order to get their own small bill passed despite broad policies that will have a serious and harmful impact. Members of the House should consider this bill in its entirety and what it does to our country. It 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. Under this bill, our country becomes less secure as we must rely on foreign imports of energy to fuel our vehicles and run our businesses. When the federal government shuts down energy production here in America, we're sending good-paying jobs overseas. Over 3 million acres of land will be locked up from possible energy production and new jobs won't be created when Americans desperately need them. With our economy reeling and thousands of Americans losing jobs every week, this is a poisonous policy that makes it tougher and more expensive to get America's economy back on track. This bill bans recreational access to millions of acres of public lands despite proponents' claims that it will protect vast new land areas for the appreciation of Americans. Lands that citizens currently use for enjoyment will be barricaded from recreational vehicle use. Riding a bicycle won't even be allowed. The harm to American's outdoor enjoyment is so outrageous that even ESPN has covered it. This bill costs $10 billion at a time when taxpayers and our economy simply can't afford it. Our National Parks System can't even keep existing properties open and in working order. With a maintenance backlog of 9 billion dollars on existing lands, Congress should not be passing a $10 billion bill to buy more land and make the problem worse. This bill makes it more difficult for the Border Patrol and other law enforcement to secure our southern border by restricting vehicle access onto specific lands. This bill would make criminals and potential felons out of children and others who collect fossils on federal lands. Mr. Speaker, I could go on much longer, but we have only 20 minutes for debate and we're considering a package of over 170 bills, so we have just 7 seconds to debate each bill's cost and effect upon domestic energy production, American jobs, recreation access to public lands, and border security. I urge my colleagues to oppose passage of this bill under suspension of the rules and insist on the ability to consider it under a fair, open process that allows for amendments. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, this bill costs $10 billion at a time when taxpayers and the economy simply can't afford it. Our National Parks Service system can't even keep existing priorities open and in working order. With the maintenance backlog of $9 billion on existing lands, Congress should not be passing a $10 billion bill to buy more lands to make the problem worse. This bill makes it more difficult for the Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies to secure the southern border. And this bill makes criminals and potential felons out of children who want to collect fossils on Federal lands. Mr. Speaker, I could go on much longer, but I only have 20 minutes for debate.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, is this motion by the Democrat bill manager the only way that this bill may be amended under suspension of the rules?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, as we are considering S. 22, has the gentleman from West Virginia made a motion to amend S. 22?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I have a series here of questions I would like to ask under parliamentary inquiry, and that does not count against my time; is that correct?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I think I know the answer, but further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if S. 22 had been considered under an open rule, would any Member with a germane amendment be able to offer that amendment?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, then, under suspension of the rules, no other Member except the Democrat bill manager may offer amendments or text directly to S. 22 to change any other provisions of the bill which have not been considered by the House or which have substantive issues like cutting off recreational opportunities, reducing border security, locking up energy sources, or high costs?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to consider the Senate Omnibus Lands bill by suspending the rules of the House. Let us be very clear about what's happening on the House floor this morning. For weeks and months, Democrat leaders in the Senate and the House, and outside special interest groups, have repeatedly insisted that the House must pass this massive Senate bill without changing a single word or it will be doomed to Senate purgatory and no further action will be taken. This was the justification given for why every Member of this House should be blocked from offering their ideas and amendments to improve or change this 1,200-page bill. Yet this morning, as I have just confirmed with the Speaker through the parliamentary inquiry, Democrat leaders are using the special suspension process to amend the Senate bill and simultaneously block other Members from offering an amendment. The Senate's Rubicon of not changing one word has now been crossed. S. 22 has been amended. If we change one part of the bill, then this House deserves the opportunity to consider it in an open and fair manner. Instead, the Democrat leaders are shutting down everyone from offering amendments, including Democrats who have publicly been outspoken about wanting to remove entire provisions from S. 22. I urge these Democrats and all House Members to oppose this bill under suspension and demand a fair and open process of debate. The suspension process, Mr. Speaker, should be reserved for noncontroversial bills with little or no cost to the taxpayers. Yet, this Senate Omnibus Lands bill costs over $10 billion and consists of over 170 bills folded into a 1,200-page monster piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is an extreme abuse of the process for considering bills under suspension of the rules. Under suspension of the rules, the House has only 40 minutes to debate the bill. With over 170 bills in this omnibus package, that allows just seven seconds--seven seconds--to debate each bill. And of these 170 plus bills, 100 of them have never been passed by the House. Any notion that this is just a package of bills already passed by the House is absolutely false. Now, I know that for some Members there may be a page or two in this 1,200-page bill that does something positive for their district. In fact, three separate pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that I authored were attached to this package. But I am more concerned about the other bills that have not been closely examined or been debated by the House. This massive bill was assembled behind closed doors with the purpose of creating a package that tries to force individual Members to vote for it in order to get their own bill passed despite broad policy differences that will have serious and harmful impacts. Members of the House should consider this bill in its entirety and what it does for our country. This bill 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. Under this bill, our country becomes less secure, and we must rely on foreign imports of energy to fuel our vehicles and run our businesses. When the Federal Government shuts down energy production in America, we are sending good-paying jobs overseas. Over 3 million acres of land will be locked up from possible energy production, and new jobs won't be created when Americans desperately need them in these times. With our economy reeling, and thousands of Americans losing jobs every week, this is a poisonous policy that makes it tougher and more expensive to get America's economy back on track. This bill also bans recreational access to millions of acres of public lands despite proponents' claims that it will do otherwise. Lands that citizens currently use for enjoyment will be barricaded from recreational vehicle use. Riding a bicycle won't even be allowed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I suspected that would be your response, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, could the Rules Committee have issued a rule to allow Members from both sides of the aisle to offer amendments to strike objectionable provisions or restore House- passed language which was not included by the Senate?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Including you?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Why don't I reserve my time, and we'll be even.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I understand that I am ready to close on my side. If the gentleman from West Virginia is prepared to close after I speak, I will go ahead.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a new member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Two points. The reason this ruling came about was because of the listing of the polar bear and that the Bush administration started this process, which is required by law----

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this totally closed rule. As the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee, I especially object to a very dangerous policy rider that could seriously threaten new job creation and economic growth across our entire country. Section 429 of this bill allows the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw, with no public notice and no public comment, two rules established during the Bush administration that ensure the listing of the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act is not transformed into a vast new expansion of government power to impose greenhouse gas emission regulations on economic activity across America. Section 429 empowers the Interior Department or a Federal judge to limit potentially any carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emission in all 50 States using the polar bear and the Endangered Species Act as a regulatory vehicle. We all want to protect the polar bear. As the Washington Post editorialized last year, ``Though the polar bear deserves protection, the Endangered Species Act is not the means, and the Fish and Wildlife Service is not the agency to arrest global warming.'' By wiping out this rule under 429, any increase in carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emission would be subject to a potential lawsuit on the grounds that the action must first require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate emissions. What emits greenhouse gases? I will name a few examples, Mr. Speaker. It's building a new factory in Pennsylvania or a new school on an Indian reservation, it's farming and cattle ranching. Most all of the shovel-ready projects on the trillion-dollar stimulus bill would, in fact, be at risk. Democrats know section 429 is extremely controversial so they slipped this into this massive spending bill behind closed doors. Mr. Speaker, why the secrecy? The reason is obvious. Section 429 threatens the creation of new jobs in every State and can do real harm to our already troubled economy. This is a backdoor maneuver to warp the original purpose and intent of the Endangered Species Act to invent vast new climate change powers for the Federal Government to control economic activities. Democrats claim section 429 is just an attempt to stop midnight rules completed at the end of the Bush administration. Yet, Mr. Speaker, these rules in the Bush administration were written in full compliance with the law. Democrats have written section 429 to say ``forget all the laws; forget public comment from the American people. We don't have to follow the laws. Just wipe these legal rules off the books that put jobs and our economy at risk.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to make note that last night the junior Democrat Senator from Alaska wrote to the Senate Democrat leadership expressing his deep concern and objections to this provision, the harm it could do to economic activity and that it should be removed from this legislation. That's exactly what we should be doing here today. And I ask my colleagues to support that action. Again, Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this measure, and I urge my colleagues to open up the omnibus appropriations bill to amendment. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, February 24, 2009. Hon. Daniel Inouye, Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Inouye: I write to express my serious concern over Section 429 of the just-released House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, H.R. 1005, now being considered in the House of Representatives. This section, which was included in the bill without any advance notice, would provide significant new authority to the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to potentially overturn two of the regulations the Bush Administration adopted under the Endangered Species Act. One of the rules is the Polar Bear Special 4(d) Rule, which has provided some much-needed legal certainty to the application of the Endangered Species Act to the North Slope of Alaska. The Secretary of the Interior would have 60 days from the date of enactment of the Omnibus Bill to withdraw or ``reissue'' the Special Rule for the polar bear issued on December 10, 2008. The language of Section 429 is attached. If Section 429 is enacted as is, the Secretary would not have to comply with any statutory or regulatory provision that would normally affect such an action, including public notice or comments or consultation requirements. Significantly, Section 429 also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to ``reissue'' the 4(d) Rule for the Polar Bear. It is unclear what actions the Secretary may take in reissuing the rule. While it is possible that the Secretary would only be authorized to reissue the Special 4(d) Rule as it was previously published, under an alternative interpretation, the Secretary may be able to issue a revised rule, with major changes, without having to comply with the typical procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act or the Endangered Species Act. The existing legislative history of the Omnibus Bill does not explain how Congress intends the term ``reissue'' to be interpreted. This lack of clarity will only cause more legal uncertainty, in an area of law where litigation already is rampant. Activities of numerous businesses operating in Alaska, and of the Inupiat people of the North Slope, will be caught in this void. Additionally, there would be no ``incidental take'' protection if Section 429 is enacted and the polar bear 4(d) Rule is withdrawn, without a similar Rule in its place. Should the Secretary decide to withdraw the 4(d) Rule under Section 429, the polar bear would remain listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Under the Department of the Interior's regulations, the full range of Section 9 prohibitions apply to all threatened species unless a species is subject to its own Section 4(d) rule. As such, the activities currently covered, and protected, by the 4(d) Rule would be at risk for incurring liability under the Endangered Species Act, should a take of a polar bear occur. This liability would extend even to minor, incidental impacts on polar bears from otherwise entirely lawful activities. This could endanger the public if a polar bear wanders onto a North Slope playground or village. This liability risk will remain until the Secretary promulgates new Section 4(d) regulations for the polar bear. Under this section, the protections built into the current 4(d) Rule could disappear without a replacement 4(d) Rule in the works. I see no valid public policy reason to inflict on the people of the North Slope significant legal uncertainly and potential liability under the ESA, by congressionally waiving ordinary public notice and comment requirements that routinely apply in virtually all other settings. The inclusion of Section 429 is particularly disturbing in that it effectively ``cherry-picks'' and exempts certain regulations and has the effect of depriving the public of due process. Irrespective of whether one agrees or disagrees with the substance of rules adopted by the prior administration, this action sets a bad precedent. If the current administration disagrees with a rule previously adopted, there exists a process by which the rule can be reviewed and the notice and participation rights so citizens respected. Finally, the underlying policy goal at issue here--using the Endangered Species Act to regulate climate change--is far too important a matter to be decided without debate as a non- germane portion of an appropriations bill. I understand that the House may move to strike Section 429 as an extraneous rider. If the motion to strike is not adopted, I respectfully request your assistance and leadership in seeking to omit the language from a Senate bill, or seeking to have the language omitted from any final House-Senate agreement. Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this important matter. Sincerely, Mark Begich, U.S. Senator.