Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California, I just want to make this point, and this is a very, very important point. Yesterday, prior to taking up the veto override of the farm bill, the Democrat leaders knew that title III was out of the bill. Therefore, it was not a bill that had passed either House. Therefore, the ultimate rule of this land, the Constitution, was violated. It was at that point, Mr. Speaker, that there should have been discussions on how to remedy this in a way, but there was no discussions on that, at least with the leaders on our side. Yet we went ahead with the action of overriding a veto, overriding a bill that the House had not passed. That is what the facts were yesterday, and it was not brought to the full House's attention until the leaders on our side stood up after the vote to ask what the procedures were for clarification. Had we known that ahead of time, we probably could have gone through regular order and got this resolved in such a way that would have been acceptable to all sides. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the namesake of the bill that we are debating later on, the Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization Act of 2009. The gentleman from California served as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He has been somebody that I have looked up to in my years in Congress. He probably, if not the most knowledgable person in this House on military affairs, he is certainly one of the most. I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Franks.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, there are two primary purposes to the rule that is before the House today. One purpose, legitimate, though unfair, relating to the defense authorization bill. The other purpose, a unilateral, partisan abuse of power by the liberal leaders of the House. The first purpose. This rule provides for consideration of 58 amendments to the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Of the 58 amendments that this rule makes in order, 42 are Democrat amendments. Just 14 Republican amendments were allowed. Two of those amendments have bipartisan support. The Rules Committee has blocked two-thirds of the amendments submitted by members of the Republican Party. Reasonable, responsible amendments that raise legitimate national defense issues relating to the security of American troops and the American people are not being permitted to be debated on the House floor. The defense authorization bill was approved by a unanimous bipartisan support, Mr. Speaker, of the Armed Services Committee. But that does not mean that that bill is perfect. Indeed, amendments to the bill were filed with the Rules Committee by both Democrats and Republican members of the Armed Services Committee. These members, who had worked in a bipartisan way in committee and who wanted to have their ideas for improving the defense authorization bill considered by the House, were denied that opportunity, and among those amendments that were blocked by the Rules Committee is the ranking Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, for whom this bill is named. At the same time we are applauding those committee members for their bipartisan work, the Rules Committee steps in and shuts down what has been an open, cooperative process by blocking so many Republican amendments. Mr. Speaker, the House should recognize that when a committee works in an open and honest manner to produce a truly bipartisan bill, we should recognize that, especially because it has become a rarity in this Congress. Despite the promises made by the Democrat leaders to run the most open and honest House in history, they have made it a matter of routine to close down debate, take away the ability of every Representative to offer amendments on the House floor, to defy rules, and to ignore over 200 years of legislative precedents. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this House has never seen anything the likes of what the Democrat leaders did last night with the vote to override the President's veto of the farm bill. Despite having full knowledge that the bill that the Speaker of the House certified with her signature and sent to the President was not the exact same bill that passed both the House and the Senate, Democrat leaders deliberately acted to have this House vote on overriding the President's veto. The bill that the Speaker sent to the President completely omitted title III of the farm bill. This is the entire trade section that runs several dozen pages. It has been asserted that deletion of this title from the farm bill that the Speaker sent to the President was simply a mistake, an oversight, or a technical error. That may very well be. That may very well be, Mr. Speaker. Yet Democrat leaders deliberately acted yesterday to have the House vote to override a Presidential veto on a bill that the House had never, ever passed. They took this action in direct contradiction to the simple procedures established in article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I have often spoken to elementary and high school students about my job as a Congressman and how Congress works. The most fundamental lesson I always convey is how a bill becomes law in this Congress. It's very simple. The House and the Senate must pass the exact same bill. It must be exact. No comma difference. When they do that, the bill is sent to the President to be signed into law or vetoed and returned to the Congress. Mr. Speaker, this did not happen with the farm bill. The bill passed by both the House and the Senate was not the bill that the Speaker of the House signed and sent to the President. Mr. Speaker, last week I stood right here on the House floor and stated that while I believed that the farm bill was far from perfect, I would vote for the bill because of the positive provisions it included for specialty crop growers in my congressional district. In my speech to the House and in my communications with my constituents, I specifically cited parts of the farm bill that helped convince me to vote to pass it. In particular, I spoke about the Market Access Program in reference to technical trade assistance for specialty crops, both of which help to break down unfair trade barriers and open new markets for farmers overseas. Both of these programs are part of title III of the farm bill which passed the House and Senate but was not sent to the President. Mr. Speaker, the farm bill I voted for, and the very reasons I voted for it, was not the bill that the House voted to override yesterday. Democrat leaders of this Congress acted in an unconstitutional way in voting to override the veto vote yesterday. That the leaders acted unconstitutionally is not a matter of my personal opinion, it is a matter that has been ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court. In a 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Stevens in the 1998 line-item veto case, Clinton v. The City of New York, the court concluded, and I quote: ``The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became Public Law 105-33 after three procedural steps were taken. One, a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives. Two, the Senate approved precisely the same text. Three, that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of these three steps be taken before a bill may `become a law.' Article 1, section 7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105-33 would not have been validly enacted.'' Mr. Speaker, last night it wasn't until Republicans objected that the Democrat majority took any action to speak on the floor and inform the House of what had occurred by the omission of title III of the bill. The Democrat majority then responded, as they have for the past 16 months, by choosing the path of unilateral, partisan action over working in a bipartisan way. Keep in mind, this farm bill passed by over 300 votes in a bipartisan way. As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, there are two parts to this rule. The first makes in order amendments to the defense authorization bill. The second provides blanket authority for any bill relating to agricultural programs to be considered under suspension of the House rules. The inclusion of this blanket authority to suspend House rules and consider bills was not even discussed with Republicans. I say that with the knowledge I have as I speak here today, right now, at 10:39 a.m. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim that this is simply an effort to fix the farm bill. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the farm bill and I support getting it enacted into law. But this isn't just about a fix or finding the most convenient or face-saving way to act on the farm bill. It's about following the Constitution and holding Democrat leaders accountable for their deliberate actions yesterday, Mr. Speaker. They knew the bill they put to an override vote yesterday had never passed the House in the version that it was presented to us for the override, but they did it anyway. The House should not gloss over an incident of this magnitude with such serious constitutional violations. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Cardoza) 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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I believe funding to clean up the Hanford site in Washington State, and the Department of Energy's other Environmental Management sites across the country, is a fundamental federal obligation, not an earmark as it is labeled in this bill. However, because it has been so labeled in the Committee report, I voluntarily submit to the House an explanation and justification of this funding in an effort to provide as much public disclosure as possible on congressionally directed funding and earmarks. The $10 million programmatic increase provided for in the bill will be used for the Department of Energy's Environmental Management program at the Hanford Site in Fiscal Year 2009. The entity to receive the funding is the U.S. Department of Energy located at 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585. The Federal Government has a legal and moral obligation to clean up the massive wastes and contamination it created at Hanford during the Manhattan Project, World War II and the Cold War. Funding to clean up Hanford is not a luxury sought by myself or my constituents, it is an essential responsibility of the United States government. The over 500-square-mile Hanford site is the world's largest and most complex environmental cleanup project, and the Federal Government must keep its commitment to clean it up. No matching funds are required.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. In response to my good friend from New York's response, let's set the record straight. We are talking about tax extenders. By definition, tax extenders mean we are extending existing tax relief for people. These are in law already. They have been extended many, many times in the past and always been extended without raising taxes on the other end. Now the gentleman says that the provision they have in this bill may or may not have bipartisan support. I'm not going to argue with that point. It probably should be looked at on its merits. But my point in this and the whole part of this debate is that these are extending existing tax relief for the American people, and you don't have to start setting the principle of raising taxes in other areas to continue tax extensions that are already in law. That's the point that I was making. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can consider this vitally important issue for America. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

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, this legislation, which was approved by the Armed Services Committee by a unanimous vote of 61-0, as my friend from Florida mentioned, would make a number of very positive improvements to our armed services, and I think this entire House should be particularly proud of the committee's bipartisan efforts to improve the quality of life and safety of those serving our country in the armed services and their families. This legislation would authorize $600 billion in spending for our Nation's Armed Forces, including $530 billion in spending for defense programs at the Pentagon and Energy Departments and $70 billion to bolster the success of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for part of 2009. It would authorize $783 million for continued procurement and enhancement of current body armor systems; $1 billion for the training and support of the Iraqi security forces; and nearly $2 billion for unfunded readiness initiatives as requested by the services. It increases Active Duty Army personnel, Mr. Speaker, by 7,000 and Active Duty Marine Corps personnel by 5,000, while also providing our uniformed servicemembers with a much-deserved pay raise of 3.9 percent. And for our active duty troops and veterans who have already done so much to serve our country, it prohibits increased copayments and premiums for TRICARE recipients, and expands suicide prevention efforts. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation also requires the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual report on Iran's nuclear capabilities so that this Congress can take a proactive role on recognizing the potential of this threat and be made aware of the threat that these capabilities pose to America and our allies. While this legislation does a great deal to improve our armed services and to provide them with the resources that they need--and it accomplishes much of this in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion--there are a few areas that I think could still be greatly improved. While the Rules Committee has not yet reported out a rule governing amendment debate on this legislation--we will do that this afternoon--I want to take this opportunity to make clear that there are a number of areas that I and a number of my Republican colleagues believe can be used to improve this bill through the amendment process. First, it is my hope that the amendment process for this year's authorization bill, while it will be a structured rule, will still be as open as it has been under Republican majority, when between 30 and 40 amendments were regularly allowed to be debated and decided by the entire House of Representatives. Of particular concern is the reduction in funds and focus that the Armed Services Committee chose to provide in this bill for protecting America from the threat posed by ballistic missiles. In the Armed Services Committee, my colleague Terry Everett from Alabama offered amendments to both authorize the President's request fully for missile defense and allow procurement to go forward and to restore half of the $10 million that the committee eliminated from the request for the study of a space test bed. Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, a fellow cochairman of the Missile Defense Caucus, offered his own amendment to add $100 million to a program to launch multiple interceptor missiles at once to defeat multiple incoming missiles or decoys in the event of an attack. While these amendments, Mr. Speaker, were defeated in committee, I believe that the entire House should have the opportunity to hear their arguments and make their own decisions on these issues, as well as the amendment by my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Sessions of Texas, to state the sense of Congress that we need to support the development, testing, and fielding of the capability to intercept ballistic missiles in their boost phase to protect America's interests. Again, Mr. Speaker, while this rule provides for 2 hours of general debate on the bill, there are areas that this House needs and deserves to address through the amendment process. That will be addressed in the second rule that we will discuss in the Rules Committee tonight and will presumably be on the floor tomorrow. I certainly hope that the House is given a full and fair chance to consider these issues that I've highlighted, as well as others. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and namesake from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes to discuss part one of the proposed rule for the consideration of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009, 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question once again so that we can consider this vitally important issue for America's families, workers, truckers, small businesses, and, for that matter, the entire economy. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Once again I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that, with the high price of gasoline that all Americans have experienced, by defeating the previous question, 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, that would allow the House to consider H.R. 5984, the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, introduced by my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), as well as ``any amendment which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf.'' 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 am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Conaway.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, a person in whose name this defense bill is named after. I would join my friend from Missouri, the chairman of the committee, suggesting and acknowledging that it is an honor that is well, well deserved. I had an opportunity to serve on the committee for 2 years, my first 2 years in Congress. There are probably few, if any, that are more knowledgeable on these issues surrounding defending our country than the namesake of this defense authorization bill. I now yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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