Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it is astonishing to me to what lengths this liberal Congress will go to shut down debate and close the legislative process. This House, Mr. Speaker, has become far more dictatorial and far less deliberative in the last 19 months than ever before. In this Congress, there have been 59 closed rules, which is more than in any Congress in the history of our country. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, a closed rule means Members are prohibited from coming to the House floor and offering an amendment to the bill that is being considered on the floor. An open rule allows Members to offer amendments to a bill that's being considered on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, it is simply as simple as that. But Mr. Speaker, there hasn't been one single, solitary open rule this entire year in this body. For this entire Congress, going back to January of last year, there has been only one open rule on bills that were not appropriations bills. These facts present a stark picture of just how closed and restrictive this liberal Congress has become. Yet the Speaker and Democrat-controlled Rules Committee aren't satisfied with having the worst, most closed record in history. They've decided to go even further to undermine the rules and traditions of the U.S. House of Representatives. With this rule, they've reached an absolute new low. They have chosen to breach the long-standing, bipartisan process of an open rule for the consideration of appropriations bills. On what has been an open process on the House floor not just for years, not for decades, but dating back to the creation of the Appropriations Committee itself, this process is being closed down by this oppressive, liberal Congress. This rule provides for consideration of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill for the next fiscal year. It is a bill that has always, Mr. Speaker, had strong bipartisan support. For example, last year it passed by a recorded vote of 409 in favor and only two against. And during that debate last year, there were just 15 amendments that were offered. And the total debate on the House floor was just 5 hours, which is a short time for appropriations bills. Mr. Speaker, there is no part of this record that justifies what is being proposed today to decimate this open process. There is simply no excuse for what is being done and proposed by this rule. I can only conclude that this is a blatant political attempt to stifle debate on the House floor in order to hold onto political power. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, it is being done at the expense of the rules and traditions of the People's House, the U.S. House of Representatives. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the new fiscal year begins on October 1; that's just 62 days away. Yet this House hasn't passed one single appropriations bill. At the end of the week, it will probably have passed one. By comparison, Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Republican House had passed every bill except one by this point of the year. It is a troubling, disappointing, and dangerous situation when those who control this liberal Congress are punting on their duty to pass the 12 annual appropriations bills while simultaneously undermining the open consideration of these very same appropriations bills, an open process that has been a bipartisan hallmark of this House since the inception of the Appropriations Committee. And why is this being done, Mr. Speaker? Again, I can only conclude that it is because this liberal Congress refuses to allow open debate and votes on producing more American-made energy. Those who control this Congress have refused to allow a vote on lifting the ban on offshore drilling, at ANWR in Alaska, and on other Federal lands. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama oppose offshore drilling and in ANWR, but they refuse to let Congress vote on this important issue while gas prices, Mr. Speaker, are at record levels and Americans are hurting. Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record three articles, one from the New York Times regarding Speaker Pelosi, one from the McClatchy Washington Bureau regarding Speaker Pelosi's position on offshore drilling, one in the House of nearly 6 weeks ago from The Hill regarding Mr. Obama's opinion on drilling, and one from the Las Vegas Review Journal regarding Majority Leader Reid's position on drilling in the Senate. As you know, Speaker Pelosi has repeatedly insisted that this House won't ever vote, is not going to be permitted to vote, and that she will do everything possible to block a vote on lowering gas prices by producing more American-made energy by drilling for our own Nation's gas and oil. Americans can't afford this head-in-the-sand approach. Congress needs to stand up and vote on the Republicans' ``all of the above'' energy plan that simply says, let's do everything that we can to produce more American-made energy, including pursuing more clean alternatives like wind and solar, more nuclear power, more biodiesel, improving conservation, more investment in new technology research, and of course, immediately more drilling and refining of oil and gas from America's huge underground reserves. Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear: we can continue with this ``drill nothing'' approach, or we can decide to act, to change course and to debate and vote on the Republicans ``all of the above'' plan to lower gas prices by producing more energy here in America and finding ways, at the same time, to use less. Mr. Speaker, I believe our ``all of the above'' approach to lowering gas prices would pass. It would pass, I believe, Mr. Speaker, if it were permitted to have a vote on this House floor. I believe there is a majority that would vote for it in this U.S. House. But such a vote has yet to be allowed and is not being allowed today. And next week, we're going on a 5-week vacation. Mr. Speaker, I think that is intolerable. The House is being shut down in new, bolder ways to block a vote on producing American-made energy. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this rule is proof of it. The long-standing, bipartisan practice of considering appropriations bills under an open process is being trampled on by this rule. The actions that are being taken to restrict and shut down Members' ability to offer amendments and debate spending bills--which I might add, Mr. Speaker, is the very job that the American people elected us to do--is being undermined by this appropriations process, and it creates a very dangerous and volatile situation in this House. Mr. Speaker, the leaders and the chairmen who've made this decision may well rue the day that they chose to go down this path. By their actions, bipartisanship is being diminished, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the traditions of this House are being diminished. One cannot trample on the rules and practices of traditions of this House with impunity and then expect no long-term damage to result. This is a sad and shameful rule. So I urge my colleagues to oppose it and demand this House uphold open rules for consideration of appropriations bills, which is one of the best practices historically of this institution. If we do not correct the closed rule course that is being set by this rule, it will do a great deal of long-term harm to this House that will prove, in my opinion, more difficult to reverse in the future. [From the New York Times, July 17, 2008] For Pelosi, a Fight Against Offshore Drilling (By Carl Hulse) Washington.--Upon entering Congress in 1987, Representative Nancy Pelosi quickly became part of the solid California front against oil drilling along much of the nation's coast. The Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969 and the steady push to tap the potential reserves off the state's rugged coast had galvanized Californians and made opposition to offshore drilling part of the political DNA of up-and-coming figures like Ms. Pelosi. She repeatedly resisted oil drilling in marine sanctuaries near her San Francisco district and, after joining the Appropriations Committee, was an advocate of reinstating the ban on coastal drilling through spending restrictions each year. ``We learned the hard way that oil and water do not mix on our coast,'' Ms. Pelosi told a crucial committee in 1996 as she argued for keeping the ban before a Congress then controlled by Republicans. Now, with gasoline prices soaring, those drilling restrictions are facing their most severe test in years as calls intensify to pursue domestic oil more forcefully. Yet despite increasing pressure from President Bush, a full-bore assault by Congressional Republicans and some anxiety among her own rank-and-file Democrats, Ms. Pelosi is not budging. ``The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore,'' Ms. Pelosi said in an interview. ``That is not the cause, and I am not going to let him get away with it.'' Her voice carries considerable weight because Ms. Pelosi, who is now House speaker, can prevent a vote on expanded drilling from reaching the floor. And she and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, appear intent on holding the line against calls to approve drilling in areas now off limits. They argue that the oil and gas industry is not aggressively exploring large expanses it has already leased on land and offshore. They have also urged Mr. Bush to pour some fuel from national reserves into the commercial supply chain in an effort to lower prices. Trying to demonstrate that Democrats are not opposed to drilling in acceptable locales, the House is scheduled to vote on Thursday on a proposal that would deny oil companies any new leases unless they can show they are diligently exploring existing holdings. The measure would also require annual lease sales from lands in Alaska set aside as a National Petroleum Reserve, and direct the Interior Department to make sure a pipeline is linked to the reserves. Democrats, not subtly, are calling the measure the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands, or Drill, Act. In the Senate, Democrats are pushing a measure to curb speculation in oil markets. But Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, who is escorting a delegation to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska this weekend, said the Democrats' approach was woefully insufficient. Mr. Boehner said Ms. Pelosi, in insisting on preserving the drilling ban, was putting Democrats in the crosshairs of voters furious about gas prices. ``I think Speaker Pelosi is walking her Blue Dogs and other vulnerable Democrats off a cliff, and they know it,'' said Mr. Boehner, referring to the coalition of Democrats representing more conservative districts. He accused the speaker of using procedural maneuvers to thwart votes on expanded drilling, a position that he said would prevail if the moment arrived. ``Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are standing in the way of what the American people want,'' Mr. Boehner said. In both the House and Senate, small groups of Democrats have begun meeting informally with Republicans to try to reach a bipartisan response to higher oil prices, and opening up new areas to drilling is part of the mix. Leaders of the Blue Dog coalition are openly pressing for drilling in the Arctic refuge and elsewhere. Backers of the drilling ban have pushed back furiously and appear to have bolstered some of their colleagues. Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who has been fighting offshore drilling since the 1970s, has been cornering fellow senators to impress upon them the importance of the ban to Californians, comparing it to a mainstay of farm-state senators. ``This is our ethanol,'' Mrs. Boxer said of protecting the coast from oil drilling. Since taking over as speaker, Ms. Pelosi has asserted herself on energy policy, which she sees as an overarching cause that encompasses national security, climate change, the economy, health care and the environment. ``This captures everything,'' said Ms. Pelosi, who last year broke a deadlock that had lasted for decades over increasing automotive fuel economy standards. In a private meeting last week, according to some in attendance, Ms. Pelosi told members of her leadership team that a decision to relent on the drilling ban would amount to capitulation to Republicans and the White House, and that she was having none of it. She attributes today's energy problems to a failure of the Bush administration to develop a comprehensive approach, to its ties to the oil industry and to a mishandling of the economy. With the drilling restrictions under such scrutiny, backers of the ban say they are heartened that Ms. Pelosi wields the power she does. ``It is really important to have a Californian as speaker on this topic,'' said Representative Lois Capps, a Democrat who represents Santa Barbara. Ms. Pelosi has shown a willingness on issues like terror surveillance and spending on the Iraq war to look past her personal views and allow legislation she opposes to move through the House. But on the drilling ban, it is clear she sees her position as the one that should carry the day. She said national policy had to move beyond the long dispute over the ban. ``This is part of the fight we are in,'' she said. ``We have to get to a place where one day my grandchildren will say, `Do you believe our grandparents had to go with their car and fill up?' It will be like going with a barrel on our head to a well to get water. That will be the equivalent.''

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee dealing with this issue, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation with my colleague from Washington state, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, that amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow tax- exempt bond financing for airplanes that exclusively provide emergency medical services. Our current tax code prohibits the use of tax-exempt bonds for the purchase of airplanes. This exclusion was meant to prevent the use of tax-exempt bonds for frivolous purposes, including corporate jets. My legislation would continue the ban on using tax-exempt bonds for extravagant reasons and simply allow tax-exempt bond financing for airplanes that exclusively provide emergency medical services. This issue is particularly important to my district because Inland Northwest Health Services (INHS), a non-profit organization based in Spokane, is looking to expand air ambulance service to rural areas by purchasing new planes. In 2007, INHS provided 2,891 emergency medical flights. INHS currently serves Central and Eastern Washington, as well as parts of Oregon, Idaho and Montana. In my district, INHS serves residents in Adams, Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Kittitas and Klickitat counties. The IRS currently allows tax-exempt bonds to be used to purchase helicopters for air ambulance services. Some may wonder why then do we need to amend the tax code for fixed wing aircraft. In rural areas, such as my district, the use of helicopters is often impractical because of the long distances that patients must be transported. Airplanes are commonly the best mode of transportation for critically ill patients because they can travel longer distances and provide the safest and fastest mode of travel during inclement weather. While I have focused on why this legislation is important to the residents of my district, I want to be clear that my legislation does not only assist the non-profit INHS. Under this bill, any organization that would like to obtain tax-exempt bond financing for airplanes that are exclusively dedicated to providing acute emergency care would be eligible. I urge my colleagues to support this simple change to our tax code and I hope that this bill will become law in the very near future.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have had a discussion in several areas on this project. Let me start with the most fundamental area, and that's the designation of wild and scenic. I pointed out, by making this river, which is industrial--and I might add, by the way, that the initial study called for studying the wild and scenic designation only on the upper stretches, as I understand, of the Taunton River, not the lower. But the final report came back, because, as the report said, if the river could talk, this would be what they wanted. My goodness, we are listening to rivers. I would like to see that testimony to see what the river exactly said. But at any rate, the bottom half was put into this wild and scenic designation. As I pointed out, this is dramatically different, dramatically different from other wild and scenic designations across the country like the Klickitat River in my district. We talked about the issue of power and siting energy plants. The gentleman from Louisiana, where there are a lot of natural gas areas, among other energy producers in that State, is certainly knowledgeable when it comes to that. There is a lively exchange on this. Also, the Boston Herald, as I pointed out said, editorially, a week ago, less than a week ago, that this is a shameless way in order to take this issue off the table. But here is the final component, and we really haven't talked about that yet, but I do want to talk about that. I have an article here from The Herald News, which is the Fall River Herald News, and it's an article, the byline is by Mr. Will Richmond, it was written on the 15th of July, which was yesterday. The headline that I see here is ``Scenic Designation Could Sink Riverfront Businesses.'' I bring that up in this context because my friend on the other side of the aisle was making the argument that this designation would be good for the economy and so forth, presumably from the standpoint of tourism and so forth, but there are some businesses that are located right in this area, and they have some real doubts. Let me read a couple of excerpts, if I may, out of this article: ``With the U.S. House of Representatives scheduled today to vote on the designation of the lower Taunton River as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, shipbuilders and other businesses located on the banks of the waterway are anxiously watching. ``The designation would hamper businesses, they say, possibly even leading to closures.'' Now before I go on, I would just say, how does that help the people that live in this area by this designation? And I go on to quote, and I'm quoting a Mr. Donald Church, who is with Seaboats, Inc. He is the owner of Seaboats, Inc. And he says, ``It's all great to be touchy and feely, and it's great to protect the environment. But people in this city have got to have jobs.'' He goes on to say that because of this, there is some question, and it ``could easily lead to him selling his business,'' which, I might add, has a $5 million annual payroll. On the other side of the river, there is another shipbuilder, Gladding-Hearn, and their president, Peter Duclos, and I hope I say that correctly, said, and I quote, ``Our feeling is that it's a stretch to be applying a noble environmental act on this part of the river,'' Duclos said. ``This area is industrial historically. Fall River wouldn't be here without a deep water part. I'm not sure this legislation is in the best interest of the businesses along the river.'' And he's talking about potentially adding 50 new jobs, but they have some real concerns about this designation. Now, I might say, Mr. Speaker, from my experience in the western part of the United States, where we have these ``nice'' environmental designations, wild and scenic being among them, you have, our experience in the West has been, a restriction of use on these rivers, rather than an expansion. And this is precisely what these shipbuilder owners are saying with this potential designation on the industrial area of this river. So we have three aspects to this, as I mentioned. We have the aspects of undermining what the intent was of wild and scenic designation as it was put in law to really protect wild and scenic. We have the issue of energy. That has been well discussed, especially when we have energy prices going up, and we have a potential here to locate an LNG plant. And then we have the issue of jobs in this area where there is concern in this area. So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that, if for no other reason, it is a reason to defeat the rule, it is a reason, actually, to defeat the previous question so we can talk about energy; and I will be offering an amendment to that effect. But it is about defeating the rule so maybe the Rules Committee can go back, make an open rule and perfect this legislation to make it more palatable, not only to the Members of this House, but also to people that live in that area. And, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have this inserted in the Record.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this unfair rule and the underlying bill that makes a mockery of our Nation's Wild and Scenic River law. First, this rule unfairly restricts Members from being able to offer amendments on the House floor. It's not the first time. It's a continuing pattern that we have seen over and over and over again. While every Democrat amendment filed with the Rules Committee was made in order, this rule allows only two out of 15 Republican amendments to be offered on the floor. Seven attempts were made in the Rules Committee meeting on Monday to allow more amendments to be offered and to allow the House to consider the bill under an open rule allowing every Member of this body an opportunity to offer amendments on the House floor. Yet Democrats on the Rules Committee voted to block each and every attempt to allow a more open consideration of this bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may attempt to argue that some of the amendments weren't allowed for technical reasons, but those excuses ring hollow, Mr. Speaker, when they block every single attempt to allow for a more open debate. Now, Mr. Speaker, to the underlying bill to designate the Taunton River in Massachusetts as a wild and scenic river. Mr. Speaker, I openly admit that I have never visited this river myself. But as they say, ``a picture is worth a thousand words.'' Mr. Speaker, I could say nothing at all, but a picture does say a thousand words. Here I have a photograph with me of a portion of this river that is anything but wild and scenic. Now, a simple glance at this photo would be enough for the House to just halt consideration of this legislation. Such a heavily developed and industrialized riverfront, with its multilane roadways, massive bridges and fuel storage tanks should disqualify, should disqualify this section of the river from being labeled wild and scenic. Now it's argued that the reason this portion is included is because it's ``recreational.'' Mr. Speaker, honestly, it's hard to imagine that one would choose to go swimming or enjoy a peaceful canoe trip through this portion of the river. Quite simply, this portion of the river simply should not be afforded among the highest environmental protections possible under Federal law by designating it as a wild and scenic river. Mr. Speaker, quite bluntly, if this qualifies, if this qualifies as a wild and scenic river under the intent of that statute, then downtown Manhattan can be a national forest and Six Flags can be a national park. This bill was scheduled to be considered by the House last week, yet it was postponed and rescheduled again for this week. This delay was caused when questions were raised that the true purpose of the bill, to name this river as wild and scenic, was to block a liquefied natural gas, or LNG, plant that has been proposed to be sited there. With record gas prices and high energy costs, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question, because passage of this bill would block the proposed LNG plant from ever being built. Now my colleagues will argue, as they have already argued, that it already won't be built because the Coast Guard and others have raised objections and there are difficult hurdles under current law to overcome. However, the fundamental point is that today the law allows, the law allows today, for an LNG plant to be built if it can meet the necessary requirements. If it can't meet them right at this minute, then over time they may meet them. Or as the need for this energy becomes more apparent, then maybe the groundswell of support could allow this project to go forward. But if this law passes, Mr. Speaker, it will be impossible to build an LNG plant if this bill becomes law. So, Mr. Speaker, at a time when the liberal leaders of this House block any effort to increase energy production right here in America, when gas prices are skyrocketing and Americans are hurting, now is not the time, is not the time, to make energy more difficult to get or more expensive. Now the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Frank, testified before the Rules Committee on Monday. And Mr. McGovern in his remarks elaborated on this facility. He asked that the wishes of the Massachusetts delegation be respected in naming this a wild and scenic river because it only applies to them in Massachusetts. Well, Mr. Speaker, I must note with irony, with irony, that a request coming from the Massachusetts delegation to respect their wishes on this river, this bill, in opposition to this LNG plant. The argument is that this is in their backyard. And yet, Mr. Speaker, members of the Massachusetts delegation have repeatedly, repeatedly, voted to oppose the wishes of the Alaska delegation. On what you might ask? Well specifically on Alaska's wishes to develop the oil reserves in ANWR. Mr. Speaker, the folks of Massachusetts may have big backyards. But they don't stretch thousands of miles away to Alaska. We must recognize that if this industrial riverfront is permitted to be added to our Nation's wild and scenic rivers list, then truly all qualified rivers are diminished. This doesn't just affect Massachusetts. It affects every State in which there is a wild and scenic river. And in my home State of Washington, there are several. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just asked the gentleman is he acknowledging that the other was an artist's rendition? Is he acknowledging that then?

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. A lot has been said here just recently in the last exchange about plans. I have here a Boston Herald editorial called ``Cold Water on River Plan'' dated the 10th of July. I will read parts of it here: ``Bay State pols have a long tradition of using the law rather creatively to further their own political aims. But the effort by U.S. Representative Barney Frank to transform a stretch of industrial riverfront in Fall River into a 'wild and scenic' resource is as shameless as it gets.'' They go on to say, ``It is the latest attempt to kill a controversial plan for the Weaver's Cove liquefied natural gas terminal.'' I repeat once again, it's not people from other parts of the country talking about this. This is the Boston Globe. Or the Boston Herald. [From the Boston Herald, July 10, 2008] Cold Water on River Plan Bay State pols have a long tradition of using the law rather creatively to further their own political aims. But the effort by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank to transform a stretch of industrial riverfront in Fall River into a ``wild and scenic'' resource is as shameless as it gets. Think ``A River Runs Through It'' and you can picture the waterways that typically win ``wild and scenic'' designation. But until Republicans intervened Frank was close to securing that protected status for the Taunton River, limiting development along the river and its ``immediate environment.'' It is the latest attempt to kill a controversial plan for the Weaver's Cove liquefied natural gas terminal. A vote was canceled yesterday, with Frank's office suggesting Republicans wanted to make it a ``national issue.'' Well, they HAVE pointed out the irony of top Democratic leaders (Sens. Kennedy and Kerry sponsored the bill in the Senate) going all out to kill a plan that would ease the delivery of natural gas to New England customers. . . . Yes, environmentalists have been seeking a special designation of the river for years. But if anyone believes it would have gained this kind of momentum without Weaver's Cove, well, we have some rusty container ships, fuel storage tanks and warehouses along the Taunton River you might be interested in. The amusing thing is none of this seems necessary, given that the Coast Guard has already rejected Weaver's Cove based on quite ligitimate concerns about navigation and safety. Guess you never can have enough insurance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, when I asked the gentleman if this in fact was a picture of the Taunton River, the gentleman responded in the affirmative. Now there may be some changes, but he did say this is the Taunton River. Now in my remarks I said that this diminishes the wild and scenic rivers that are in every place in this country. I said that there are several of them in my State. So I would just ask my colleagues this one simple question: Are we going to change the wild and scenic designation in this country to look like this? Or like this? This is a picture of the Klickitat River which is a wild and scenic designation in my State. So if we are going to argue on the merits of wild and scenic, and making something that is urban like this as wild and scenic, we need to take into consideration what it historically has been, like the Klickitat River in my State. That is a fundamental argument that is going on here today. There are others things that enter into it, and I would be more than happy to engage in that later in my remarks. But this is a fundamental difference, and what they are trying to do with this wild and scenic designation in an urban area compared to what has been done all across the country, including my home State of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

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