Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Before I yield to the gentleman from California, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) to respond.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is currently spending 1 hour debating what rules will be used to consider the underlying Chesapeake Bay Watertrails bill. This is legislation that has passed the House in prior years with little or no dissent and without controversy. So the question must be asked, Mr. Speaker, why are the Democrat leaders going through all of this trouble of having the House consider this bill under this special rule? Why is the House going to spend 2 hours today discussing a bill that could have been handled in just 20 minutes under suspension and ultimately passed by an overwhelming number of votes in this House? And why, if the House is going to such lengths and dedicating 2 hours to consider watertrails on the Chesapeake Bay, are Members being blocked from a true, meaningful debate on the issue? This rule allows only one amendment to be offered, and that amendment would simply limit the extension of this existing Chesapeake Bay law for another 5 years, instead of extending it forever as the bill is currently written. If we are going to go through all the trouble of bringing this noncontroversial bill to the floor, why don't we have a real debate that allows every Member who has an amendment or an idea to improve this legislation to come to the House floor and have it discussed and voted on? When the Democrat leaders took control of the Congress after the 2006 election, they promised the American people that they would run the House in a more open and honest manner. But ever since they made that promise, Democrat leaders have been doing just exactly the opposite. The Congressional Record shows that this Democrat Congress actually has the worst record, Mr. Speaker, the worst record on openness in the history of our country. In the past year-and-a-half, they have only allowed one bill, one bill, to come to the House floor and be debated under an open rule. As we see today on this Chesapeake Bay bill, they are even shutting down debate on even the most noncontroversial pieces of legislation. Now, I might point out also that the Democrat leaders today convened the House early. Normally when you get to work early it is either because you have a lot to do or you want to go home early. Let's consider that the only two things the House is scheduled to do today is to spend 2 hours debating watertrails and the Chesapeake Bay and one hour of debate on a final budget that was supposed to have been done, Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, and it is a budget that raises taxes by the largest amount in American history. At any rate, that is just 3 hours of time. So why did we convene early? What are we going to do the rest of the day? It seems pretty clear that the House didn't get to work early today because they had so much to do, but rather it is, I believe, so the House can leave early and go home. Mr. Speaker, I have another idea, and that is that this House get serious about the rising price of gasoline in our country. So I urge my colleagues to vote no against the previous question when they bring that up at the end of the debate to allow the House to debate ``an amendment to a bill which the proponents assert if enacted would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.'' Mr. Speaker, I first proposed this action on a similar previous question rule back on April 23. In the 44 days since, this liberal Congress has done nothing to address rising gas prices. According to information gathered by the AAA, the citizens of Washington State, my home State, who buy gas are paying the highest reported price for gasoline that has ever been paid in that State. It is at $4.19 per gallon. Speaker Pelosi promised the American people that Democrats had ``a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Speaker Pelosi also said that the Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at the pump.'' Despite this promise of a plan and lower prices, since Democrats took control of the Congress, they have put forward no plan and prices have gone up, up and up to record levels. And Democrats have blocked every try after try by Republicans to allow the House to debate, just simply to debate legislation to lower the price of gasoline. The only bill that Democrats have brought to the floor and passed was to file lawsuits against OPEC countries in the Middle East and to try to get them to produce more oil and to reduce prices. That is all, Mr. Speaker. Democrats may believe that suing Middle Eastern countries and raising taxes is a plan to lower gas prices here in America, but common sense says that is just wrong. It is Republicans that have a plan to produce American made gas and energy and it is the Democrats who are standing in the way of these solutions. Prices go up when demand goes up, and around the world the demand for oil and gas is going way up. Our country can either continue to sit here and be at the mercy of overseas Nations for our energy needs, or we as Americans can start taking matters into our own hands and start accessing the millions of barrels of known reserves right here within the United States. Our Nation's energy reserves have been put off- limits, and Democrats continue to block even exploring the possibility of producing more energy here in America. With record gas prices at gas stations across the country, Americans can't afford to continue to rely on other countries in volatile parts of the world to sell us the gas and oil that we need. We need to produce this energy ourselves, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so this House can debate the serious issue of rising gas prices confronting Americans in our country and so we can start producing, producing, Mr. Speaker, American-made gasoline. If the House is going to spend 2 hours debating authorizing the Chesapeake Bay Watertrails law for 5 years or not, we certainly I think, Mr. Speaker, can afford to dedicate some time to considering ways to reduce the rising price of gasoline. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) 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. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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 the time. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leaders today have put a noncontroversial Chesapeake Bay watertrails bill on the House floor, but what is first and foremost on the minds of Americans is gas prices, as we have talked about today. And it's also a huge concern in the Chesapeake Bay communities. I venture to guess the citizens and families living around the Chesapeake Bay don't wake up in the morning worried about watertrails but they do worry in the Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake basin about the price of gasoline. I would like to submit, Mr. Speaker, for the Record, several news releases here talking about the price of gasoline. This is from WJZ, a local Maryland station. And it says here, ``Watermen Feeling Pain At the Pump.'' It talks about the beautiful weather, but it also says that the price of gas is doubling and the price of seafood is going down, and that's a bad combination. Here is another one: ``Gas prices force business owners to clamp down.'' And there's talk about a gentleman who has to spend $4,000 a month on gasoline. And here is another one regarding the Chesapeake Bay community. It says, ``Gas prices fuel dip in fishing.'' [From WJZ--a local Maryland station, May 30, 2008] Watermen Feeling Pain At The Pump (By Alex DeMetrick) The weather is beautiful on the Chesapeake Bay. But things are downright ugly at fuel docks. Alex DeMetrich reports gas prices are soaring and that's having an impact on those who depend upon boats and the bay to make a living. Naming a work boat the ``Last Penny'' may have been a stab at humor once, but it's striking a little too close to reality at fuel docks around the bay. Diesel is at $4.50 a gallon and climbing. ``The gas is doubling and the price of seafood is going down,'' said Waterman Bucky Murphy. Working the water takes constant moving. But with crabs spotty and fuel high, watermen are trying to conserve. ``They're hurting us bad. Its almost double in the past year, so it's taking a right good bite out of us.'' said waterman Wendell Lednun. Joe Spurry buys crabs on Tilghman Island, but his truck might carry them as far away as New York. Right now, crabs are selling for around $90 a bushel dockside. By the time they get to a seafood market in Baltimore, they could cost around $200 a bushel.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will there be a separate vote in the House on passing this joint resolution adjusting the debt limit upwards?

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 thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the time. I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee voted along party lines to not allow the U.S. House of Representatives, this body, to even consider two amendments that I offered that would have helped school districts whose tax bases are significantly reduced by the presence of tax-exempt Federal lands. This bill would drastically expand the Federal Government's role in school construction and maintenance, activities historically funded at the State and local level before. But they're doing this before the Federal Government meets its existing responsibilities to schools that are impacted by Federal land ownership. Mr. Speaker, over 33 percent of my district in Central Washington is owned by the Federal Government; making 11 school districts eligible for Impact Aid programs. I know all too well the consequences of Federal land ownership and the impact it has on the ability of schools to make needed improvements. In the Grand Coulee Dam area in my district, students attend classes in buildings that are more than half a century old and that are literally falling apart. While the local residents in those districts have agreed to pay one of the highest school levies to maintain current levels in the State of Washington, the school district remains unable to secure a bond to make improvements on physical facilities because the community is surrounded by Federal lands and, therefore, has a limited tax base. The Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that no child's education is shortchanged because of Federal land ownership. And, in my view, it's only fair that the Federal Government take care of federally impacted schools before launching a brand new spending program costing billions of dollars that's aimed at schools that aren't federally impacted. I offered two amendments in the Rules Committee. The first would have required that our commitment to federally impacted schools be met through full funding in the Impact Aid program before funding is spent on new Federal spending in this bill. My second amendment, which I offered along with my colleague, Robin Hayes of North Carolina, would have simply given preference, preference, to federally impacted schools as the new construction and maintenance funds were distributed. Unfortunately, Democrat leadership blocked both of my amendments from being debated or voted on today on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, if the Federal Government cannot meet its current responsibilities to federally impacted schools, then it certainly has no business creating a brand new $20 billion spending program for other schools. Rather than passing this massive expansion of the Federal Government's role in school construction, we should refocus our efforts on fulfilling existing obligations to schools and children impacted by Federal actions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and against the underlying bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can now really have a dialogue on the rising price of energy in this country. I believe it's strongly the responsibility of the elected leaders of the people to take this issue up, and we will have this opportunity by defeating the previous question. I yield back my time.

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 the time. Mr. Speaker, I woke up today and heard on the news that oil is $137 a barrel on the worldwide market, and I think it's time for the House to debate ideas. I know there are a number of ideas in this House on lowering the cost of gasoline specifically. So I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous question so that this House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not rewrite the entire rule. But that section would say it shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I have numerous people that would like to speak, but I haven't got the time for that. If the gentleman would entertain an extension of time on both sides, I would be more than happy to allow my Members to speak. But I'm constrained for time. So if the gentleman would allow me unanimous consent for some more, I would do that. But I will leave it up to the gentleman. I am the last speaker under the regular time.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. For the purpose of a unanimous consent, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun). (Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Rules Committee and now a member of the Armed Services Committee.