Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3227, legislation to allow for the continued stocking of fish in certain alpine lakes in the North Cascades National Park Complex, including the North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. Many of these lakes have been stocked since the turn of the 20th century, long before they became part of the National Park complex. For decades, volunteer groups, working with the State of Washington, have stocked trout in a number of lakes in this area under carefully constructed management plans written by State and Park Service biologists. In addition, congressional consideration of the creation of the North Cascades National Park points to allowing fish stocking. In order to protect this longstanding practice in the North Cascades, I introduced H.R. 3227 to ensure that fish stocking can continue. While I believe the original text of this bill provided the clearest path to the protection and continuation of fish stocking, I am also confident that this amended text also fully ensures the stocking of fish in these lakes. I would like to briefly mention two of the changes to the legislation. First, the amended version of H.R. 3227 reduces the number of lakes that can be studied from 91, which is the number of lakes that have historically had fish stocking, to 42. I believe this reduction was unnecessary but am supporting it to ensure the advancement of this legislation. In my view, it should be left up to scientists in the Park Service and the State of Washington to decide which lakes should be stocked. Congress does not have the proper science to study which lakes are best and, therefore, we should not be arbitrarily limiting the number of lakes that can be studied. The changes made in the Resources Committee also limited the type of fish that can be used to stock the lakes. After working with the National Park Service and the State of Washington, my original legislation was drafted to allow fish that are either native to the watershed or functionally sterile to be used. The version before us today states that the fish have to be both native to the Cascade Range and functionally sterile. The one word change from ``or'' to ``and'' puts a needless burden on those who stock the lakes. Those involved with fish stocking want to ensure that the lakes and the surrounding area are kept in pristine condition. In addition, the National Park Service and the State of Washington are the only entities with the authority to stock the lakes. Again, it is my view that these decisions should be left up to science and the people working in the North Cascades to decide what fish are both safe for the environment and the best for stocking. This change will only serve to increase the cost and the effort needed to stock the lakes of the North Cascades--but such a compromise moves this bill forward. Despite my disagreement on the wisdom of changes made to this legislation, I am pleased that the House has the opportunity to pass H.R. 3227 today. Although the version before us is far from perfect, it does allow fish stocking to rightfully continue in the North Cascades. Compromise is never easy, and at times it produces a diminished product. That is the case today. However, I can support it as a result of bipartisan negotiations and agreement. But, more importantly, I can support it because it provides firm protections to continue fish stocking where it was always intended to be allowed. Finally, I would like to thank many of my Washington state colleagues who cosponsored H.R. 3227, including Rick Larsen, Norm Dicks, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brian Baird and Adam Smith. I especially would like to note the assistance provided by Norm Dicks, whose involvement in this issue goes back to his time as a staff member in Congress. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation to make sure that my constituents and many other residents of Washington and our surrounding States can continue to enjoy the recreation opportunities created by fish stocking in the North Cascades.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, last week on July 4, our country celebrated its 232nd birthday, and this week the liberal majority in the House of Representatives marks the worst record in our country's entire history when it comes to allowing open debate, following the rules, treating each Member with respect, and acting in an honest way. When control of the U.S. House changed a year ago last January, Democrat leaders promised, they promised, Madam Speaker, the American people that they would run the most open and honest House in history. They've not kept that promise. In fact, they've done the exact opposite of what they promised the American people. Democrats have passed, to date, 59 closed rules, rules that prevent every single Representative from even being allowed to offer an amendment on the House floor. There are no amendments, Madam Speaker, allowed under a closed rule, as you know. That means open deliberation is nonexistent, and the bill is just forced through the House. These 59 closed rules are more than any Congress in the history of the United States, and every time we have a closed rule in the future, and we will, this liberal Congress will be setting a new record. The rule that the House is currently debating allows only two amendments to be offered by just two Members of the House. It closes off any opportunity for the other 433 Representatives to come to the floor and offer an amendment to modify or improve this legislation. Even more egregious is the fact that the Rules Committee set a deadline of 10 a.m. last Tuesday for Members to file amendments they may wish to offer on this bill. Yet, it wasn't until 4 hours later, 2 p.m. on Tuesday, that the actual bill and report were filed in the House. But this pales in comparison to the Rules Committee action regarding an amendment that Mr. Bishop of Utah filed actually before the 10 a.m. Tuesday deadline. Mr. Bishop's amendment was aimed at protecting the second amendment rights of Americans along the new 600-mile trail that this bill would create. Instead of allowing Mr. Bishop to offer his amendment on the House floor, the Democrat Rules Committee took Mr. Bishop's amendment, altered it, then automatically added it to the bill without ever, ever consulting Mr. Bishop. This is not only an offense to Mr. Bishop, it is a threat to every Member in the House. Because Democrat leaders refuse to allow open debate under an open rule on the House floor, Members have only one way to get an amendment looked at, and that is for them to offer and submit an amendment to the Rules Committee for advance review. But now, Madam Speaker, it appears that all Members must be aware that the Rules Committee may take, co-opt, edit or otherwise pilfer and steal their amendments and ideas. Sadly, Representatives of this House may need to get a copyright on their amendments before submitting them to the Rules Committee. Now, Madam Speaker, to many across America this may seem like legislative inside baseball or petty parliamentary quarrels. But what this is really about is that the Democrat leaders are breaking their promise to the American people to run the most open and honest House in history. Instead, they are running the most closed and unfair House in our Nation's history. Yet, Madam Speaker, these broken promises should not distract us from the even more pressing matter on which Democrat leaders have also broken their promise. It was on April 24, 2006, that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a press release claiming that the House Democrats ``have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Two weeks later, in May 2006, Nancy Pelosi said that the Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at the pump.'' Nancy Pelosi has now been Speaker of the House for over 18 months, and this plan, this promised plan, is nowhere to be seen. Gas prices continue to set record highs, and this House has been and continues to be blocked from voting on legislation that would lower gas prices by producing more American-made energy. Today, instead of voting on legislation to lower gas prices, the House is debating the bill to create a new 600-mile long scenic trail recognizing the Revolutionary War. Speaker Pelosi and other liberal leaders who control this House may oppose drilling in Alaska or offshore, they may oppose more nuclear power, they may oppose hydropower dams, and they may oppose other ways of making more American-made energy--and holding these positions, of course, is their right as Members of this House--but they should not, Madam Speaker, have the right to block the House from even having a debate and a vote on this important issue. Record gas prices are hurting Americans. It's hurting families. It's hurting seniors on fixed incomes. It's hurting college students. It's hurting small business owners and their enterprises. It's hurting schools who have to figure out how and what services to reduce to afford gasoline for their school buses. Yet these liberal leaders of this House refuse to allow an open debate on ideas to lower gas prices. They continue to block votes on drilling for oil in America that will increase supply and lower prices at the pump. Madam Speaker, our Nation needs to invest in more nuclear power. We need to invest in more clean and renewable hydropower, as well as wind and solar energy, and we need to foster development of biofuels, hydrogen fuel cell technology, and the invention of other potential clean energy products. Yet, Madam Speaker, we must recognize the fact that gasoline and diesel cannot be replaced overnight. New technologies and energy sources take time, sometimes years or decades to fully develop. Our economy is dependent on oil for Americans to get to work, for food to go from the farmer's field to the grocery store, to get kids to school safely and back home, to deliver the mail, to fly airplanes, to operate construction equipment, for police to patrol neighborhoods, and ambulances to transport patients. The price of gas has an enormous impact on the lives of Americans and families in every town, in every county, in every State in this country. Madam Speaker, I spent last week visiting school districts and small businesses throughout my central Washington district. I listened to the heavy impacts that gas prices are having on my constituents in Yakima, Wenatchee, Cashmere, Moses Lake, Orondo, Richland, Union Gap and Pasco. Madam Speaker, the message I heard was loud and clear, that Americans are hurting because of high gas prices and this Congress needs to act. Americans can't afford a Congress that does nothing to increase the supply of American-made energy. If there is price gouging, Madam Speaker, it must be fully prosecuted. If speculators are trying to unfairly profit, we must stop them, also. And yet we must also tap into America's enormous oil and gas reserves. We have the resources right here in this country that can increase the supply of oil and reduce the price of gasoline at the pump, but our Nation's deep reserves have been put off-limits. With the national price of gas well over $4 a gallon--and it's over $4.29 a gallon in my district--Americans can't afford this off-limits policy any longer. Madam Speaker, consider this: Alaska's ANWR region contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil; that's more than twice the proven reserves in the State of Texas. The oceans off America's coastline contain 240 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil. Federal lands contain an estimated 31 billion barrels of oil. Simple economics tells us that the way to combat rising prices due to high demand is to increase the supply, and obviously it is to tap into these known resources. Yet proposals to increase American oil and gas production have faced years of opposition. Drilling in a tiny portion of ANWR in Alaska, for example, has been blocked since President Bill Clinton vetoed a like proposal back in 1995, and we are now paying the price. It's time to stop saying no to solutions and start saying yes, not only to drilling for gas and oil, but to all parts of the answer, as I mentioned this previously, so let me repeat what I said earlier. We need to license and build more American refineries. We need to expand wind, solar, hydrogen fuel cells and other new energy sources, reduce fuel blend mandates that increase costs, and invest more in nuclear and hydropower. Now, Madam Speaker, it's interesting, some say we shouldn't bother because all of this will take years to produce results. Yet these same people claim that the answer is new Federal mandates, government control of the kind of car you want to drive and how far you can drive it, and pinning everything on the hope that a new technology breakthrough will eliminate our dependence on oil. But Madam Speaker, that, too, takes time. But more importantly, such a course of action is not the American way, and it's a dangerous gamble that puts our economy at serious risk. We need to increase the supply of oil to decrease the price of gasoline, it's as simple as that. And we need to do it here in America. The longer we postpone producing more oil here, the longer we will pay higher gas prices. Americans are hurting, and yet there is not a single solitary piece of legislation that this House will consider this entire week that even remotely relates to producing more American-made energy and lowering gas prices. Americans are feeling the pain, and the liberal leaders of the House simply are not listening. They not only do nothing to help, but they block every attempt made to bring legislation to the floor that would help lower gas prices. So, Madam Speaker, once again, I will attempt this morning to bring energy legislation to the House floor for debate and vote. If my colleagues will join me in defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow a debate and vote on legislation that will help produce more American-made energy. The House apparently has time to debate the creation of the 600-mile trail about the Revolutionary War, so let's make time for the House to vote on solutions to lower gas prices. Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering gas prices. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow the House to consider a bill that will help produce more American-made energy, H.R. 2208, introduced by Mr. Boucher of Virginia and Mr. Shimkus of Illinois, the cosponsors of that bill. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, this House is on a course to complete its work by early this afternoon. The only legislation the House is even considering is this bill to consider a 600-mile scenic trail about the Revolutionary War. Tomorrow, the House won't even be in session. The House was originally scheduled to be in session, working tomorrow, but that was canceled yesterday. The Democrat leaders of this House are choosing to do nothing for a day and a half, today and tomorrow, that was scheduled, and of course, do nothing about gas prices. They decided to just stop working and go home early rather than vote on legislation to lower gas prices by producing more American-made energy. The House needs to confront the skyrocketing price of gasoline. It shouldn't be clocking out early and calling it a week. It's time right now for Congress to act on gas prices. So, once again, Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can amend the rule to take up serious legislation, bipartisan legislation, to bring down gas prices at the pump. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman is prepared to close if I close?

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, can I inquire of my friend from California if he has any more speakers, or he is prepared to close?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, my good friend from California mentioned CAFE standards as one solution to the problem. CAFE standards, by a law that was passed here, would not take place until 2020. We can drill and produce in ANWR before 2020. My friend also said that I made a litany of accusations and that the facts don't match the rhetoric. Well, the fact is--and he didn't refute the fact--that we've had 59 closed rules, and that is unrefutable. And I also mentioned that there was not an energy bill on the floor of the House this week; that is also irrefutable. Madam Speaker, I want to yield 4 minutes to a good friend from Utah, a former member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Bishop.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, we acknowledge that there is a practice of self-executing rules. That's been done. Principally they are done, however, on technical grounds but admittedly they are done on substantive pieces of legislation. But the fact is already in this Congress there have been more self-executed amendments by this Democrat Rules Committee than there was in the entire last Congress. Already. And we still have 6 months to go before this session is over. With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend from California, the gentleman from the Sacramento area, the former attorney general, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam 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 Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, after I made my opening remarks, my friend from Florida stood up and said that I was on message, and I thank him very, very much for the compliment because I was talking about something that the American people clearly, clearly are concerned about, and that is the high energy costs and particularly the high prices of gasoline. So I think, Mr. Speaker, it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices at the pump and for addressing the skyrocketing price of gasoline. By defeating the previous question, the House will have that opportunity. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule, not rewrite the rule, just amend the rule, to make in order and allow the House to consider H.R. 5656, introduced by Representative Hensarling of Texas. If this House has time to spend several hours debating Indian land claims and new casinos in Michigan, then it certainly has time to debate the high price of gasoline. It's time we start producing more American-made energy. Our country can't afford the knee-jerk, no-to- any-drilling-in-America approach that the liberal leaders of this House still cling to. The citizens of our country can't afford a Congress that does nothing. It's time for this House to act, and defeating the previous question will allow us to do so. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, then, to defeat the previous question so this House can get serious about rising gas prices and so we can start producing American-made gasoline and energy. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and namesake from Florida, the other Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much 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, this bill deals specifically with Indian land claims settlements in Michigan and designating new tribal trust lands that will be used to open any new Indian casinos in two Michigan towns. The Michigan delegation is split in their support and opposition to this legislation, with the two Representatives whose districts will become home to the new casinos being strongly in favor of this proposal. Generally, Mr. Speaker, it has been my long-held view that when it comes to matters that affect individual congressional districts that the House should give great consideration and deference to the views of the Representatives elected by the voters in those districts. However, I know many of my colleagues join me in having various serious concerns about our Nation's broken Indian gaming law, as well as the troubling issue of Indian tribes seeking to acquire new, prime locations to open casinos where no business or interest would be allowed to do so otherwise, and doing this without the ability of the local community to have a say in the expansion of gambling in their community. These aren't just matters affecting Michigan. They affect States across the Nation. Yet, this House is not being permitted to debate needed improvements to Federal Indian gaming law. This totally closed rule blocks every single Member of this House from coming to the floor and offering an amendment to this bill. The House is being severely restricted and is spending its time refereeing a parochial Michigan dispute instead of addressing the larger, more serious matters confronting other States. This violates the promises made by the liberal leaders of this House to the American people to operate in an open manner. This is not an open process, Mr. Speaker. It's a closed process. It's not open when debate is restricted only to Michigan when, in fact, there are very serious issues affecting many States all across this country. Congress created the ability of Indian tribes to get special treatment in opening casinos, and we've got a duty to police this process. The Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is broken and needs improvement. The simple fact the House is spending several hours today debating this Michigan matter is evidence that the law is broken. If the House is going to spend time debating this subject, we should be fixing the larger problem. And if Congress is going to spend its precious time resolving a Michigan dispute, then we could use some real help in the State of Washington, my home State, where the citizens are seeing a dramatic expansion of Indian gaming, more casinos, bigger casinos, higher betting limits, with big profits being collected, and yet our State doesn't get one dime in revenue sharing. One of the reasons the proponents of this Michigan legislation, including the State's Governor, argue in favor of creating this new tribal land and two new casinos is because it will bring in millions of dollars in more revenue to the government of Michigan. Yet, in my home State of Washington, our State government gets nothing from Indian casinos that generate over $1.3 billion a year in revenue. In fact, there was a proposed revenue sharing of $140 million a year that the Governor of Washington State rejected without input from the citizens of the State or a vote of the State legislature. Some would say, well, your Governor made a terrible deal, and I would, of course, wholeheartedly agree. But there is something seriously wrong if a law allows giveaways of this magnitude to Indian casinos. But instead of allowing the House to discuss and consider amendment on the larger issues of revenue sharing, compact negotiations, and off- reservation gaming, today's debate is restricted just to Michigan. Meanwhile, the liberal leaders of this House continue to refuse to let Representatives consider and vote on solutions to lower the price of gas in our country. Prices are skyrocketing. In Florida, the average price for a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline is $4.03. In Michigan, it's $4.07. In my State of Washington, it's $4.33. That's 31 cents higher than just a month ago and $1.20 higher than a year ago. Mr. Speaker, our Nation needs to produce more American-made energy. We have the resources and technology to do it now. Now we just need to get the will of Congress here to allow it. For far too long, our Nation's reserves have been off limits. We can't afford these policies anymore, Mr. Speaker. America has abundant reserves in Alaska, in the West and offshore. Let's produce more oil and natural gas here in our country. But of course, this isn't the only answer. We need to invest in more nuclear power, hydropower, wind, solar, and other new energy sources. But all of this needs to happen in addition to tapping our own oil and gas reserves. Gas prices just keep going up and the liberal leaders of this Congress just can't say ``no'' to American-made energy anymore. Let the House debate proposals to generate more energy here in America. Stop blocking a House vote on tapping into America's oil and gas reserves while the price of gasoline climbs higher and higher. So, Mr. Speaker, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that the House can right away debate solutions to our higher gasoline prices. With that, 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.