Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time at this point, so I reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 568 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 112, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003. The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution and provides one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 112 makes further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003 and provides funding at current levels through October 11, 2002. This measure is necessary in order that all necessary and vital functions of government may continue uninterrupted while Congress continues its work on the spending measures for the next fiscal year. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass both the rule and the underlying resolution, H.J. Res. 112. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 568, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 527 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of two House resolutions. The rule provides that House Resolution 524 shall be debatable in the House for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The rule further provides that House Resolution 525 shall be debatable in the House for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 524 is a resolution expressing the sense of the House that Congress should complete action on, and present to the President before adjournment, the Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act of 2002. Although the House passed this legislation more than 3 months ago by a vote of 256-171, the other body has yet to take any action on this important measure. In fact, this legislation is only needed at all because the internal rules of the Senate limit the Death Tax Repeal Act enacted into law last year to a period of only 10 years. This means that unless we act to make this repeal permanent, in the year 2010 the death tax will be reimposed on thousands of families, farms and small businesses. Nor can we wait 10 years to provide much-needed assurance that such a massive tax increase will not be imposed. Estate tax planning is, by definition, a long-term process. Families need to know today, and they are entitled to know today, what taxes the Federal Government plans to impose on them in the not-very-distant future. For generations now, the death tax has been a leading cause of the dissolution of family-run businesses and farms all across this country. That not only hurts those families and the workers they employ, but in time of economic distress, the death tax also has an adverse effect on our overall economy. Repeal of the death tax will promote job creation and economic growth by allowing family-owned farms and small businesses to invest and reinvest in productive, job-creating expansion with resources they would otherwise spend minimizing and paying Federal death taxes. Given the large number of bills passed by the House in this session which have not been acted upon by the Senate, it is difficult to explain to our constituents why Congress has failed to complete action on this critically important measure. Today we have an opportunity to send a clear message to the American people about the House's commitment to act and act now to repeal this onerous and unfair tax increase scheduled for 2010. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today to send a similar clear message about the need for immediate action on equally important legislation passed months ago here in the House. On May 16, the House voted to reauthorize the historic welfare reform legislation enacted in the 104th Congress in 1996. Welfare reform stands as one of the proudest accomplishments of that or any recent Congress. Literally millions of American lives have been changed by landmark legislation which has helped move our most disadvantaged citizens from welfare to work. The numbers do not tell the whole story, but they are astonishing, nonetheless. In the 5 years since we have enacted those reforms, nearly 3 million children have left poverty; employment by mothers most likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent; and welfare case loads have fallen by 9 million, from 14 million recipients in 1994 to just 5 million today. Still, there is much left to do, and these historic reforms simply must be reauthorized. The States have been full partners with the Federal Government in this effort, as they should be, and they are entitled to know whether we will continue working with them to help struggling families help themselves. As with the Death Tax Repeal, for months the Senate has failed to act on this vitally important measure. Recently, 50 senators, including 40 Democrats, called for action on a 5-year reauthorization of this successful welfare reform program. Still, no action has been taken. Today we can add our voices to those Senators who are calling for action before adjournment on two of the most meaningful measures this Congress has had a chance to enact. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the two underlying resolutions we will consider later this morning. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 527, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to advise my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), that I just have one speaker to close, so I will reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a day that each of us hoped would never come, and we pray that it will not come again. Simply put, there is absolutely no satisfaction in judging one of our own. But the Constitution makes clear that we are the only ones who can judge a fellow Member of Congress in cases such as Mr. Traficant. It is certainly difficult for me, as I am sure it is difficult for my fellow members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to recommend the expulsion of a colleague. Our recommendation in this matter is based solely on the facts as we know and understand them. This recommendation is one that I know the entire committee took very seriously. My only responsibilities in this matter were twofold. First, I served as chairman of the Investigative Subcommittee. Along with 3 of my colleagues, our responsibility was to examine the evidence from Mr. Traficant's trial in Cleveland, Ohio, and to determine whether there was ``substantial reason to believe'' that violations of the House rules occurred. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank each of my colleagues on the subcommittee for their service and their support during this long and painstaking investigation. My cochair, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) should all be commended for the fair and even-handed way that they carried out this difficult assignment that none of them sought. Mr. Speaker, on the Investigative Subcommittee, our role was similar to that of a grand jury in that our threshold of substantial reason to believe is lower than the clear and convincing evidence threshold used by Chairman Hefley's Adjudicatory Subcommittee. We were charged to review the evidence presented at trial and then make our determination regarding any possibility of violation of the Rules of the House. I should emphasize that we were not simply to accept the verdict of Mr. Traficant's trial at face value, nor were we to base our recommendations on that verdict. By a unanimous, bipartisan decision, the vote on the subcommittee concluded that in fact, it had ``substantial reason to believe'' that the Rules of the House were violated, and this the next phase, the adjudicatory phase, should move forward. Now, my second responsibility was not as the whole committee had or the adjudicatory committee; my second responsibility was to determine the appropriate sanction in the event that the adjudicatory phase was so warranted. This part, I must say, was very, very difficult, difficult because measuring Mr. Traficant's transgressions against past transgressions by other Members, then determining the appropriate sanction is, by far, far from a black and white exercise. But, the Constitution assigns us this responsibility, and to us alone, and so we proceed. After considering all of the evidence, I concluded that Mr. Traficant's offenses were so serious and so purposeful that expulsion from the House is the only appropriate sanction. So with a heavy heart that is how I will vote at the conclusion of this debate, but not only for the sake of this great institution, but out of respect for the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, if any greater good is to come from these proceedings, let us hope that by facing our responsibilities squarely we have begun to rebuild public confidence in the integrity of the people's House. Whether we like it or not, in recent years too many Americans have come to believe that holding high office means a person gets to play by different rules than everyone else. That perception has helped fuel growing public cynicism about the honesty and integrity of Congress itself. Nothing could be more dangerous to our democracy, and we simply cannot allow that perception to grow unchecked. Here in the House of Representatives, we all know there are rules governing Members and the conduct of their official duties, and we also know that those rules must be enforced fairly, without fear or favor. Mr. Speaker, this is a day each of us hoped would never come. Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult time for all of us, and I know it is difficult for all of my colleagues sitting here tonight, but I think that we must vote aye on this resolution. Sadly, when the Rules of the House are violated so willfully and flagrantly, we have little choice but to punish those who break them. For, by their actions, Members who violate the rules undermine not only our own internal order here in this great institution, but the very foundation of public trust and confidence on which the people's House must always rest. Today, it's up to us to repair that foundation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that when I see somebody from an urban area sponsoring an amendment that deals with rural America, I get a little bit antsy, and I think that is the case that is happening right here. I was down at Klamath Basin a little over a year ago at a hearing, and I heard what the farmers went through. It was devastating to them; and now this amendment, which looks innocuous, it just simply says a person cannot grow row crops and no money should be used for row crops or alfalfa. That has an unintended consequence in my view in the future of now saying on reclamation projects a person is limited to what crops they can grow. It sets a precedent and I think a very bad precedent that could apply to areas probably all over the country, including the central valley of California and my area of Washington, Columbia Basin Project, that I think is very detrimental because those larger areas have the large diversity of crops. I think the gentleman comes at this with strong feelings. It is a bad way to go, in my view. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 483 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 5093, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003. The rule waives all points of order against the consideration of the bill, and provides 1 hour of general debate, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides that amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. It waives points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution. The rule further provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment by paragraph, and waives all points of order during consideration of the bill against amendments for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting nonemergency-designated amendments to be offered to an appropriation bill containing an emergency designation. Finally, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 5093 is to provide regular annual appropriations for the Department of the Interior, except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and for other related agencies, including the Forest Service, the Department of Energy, the Indian Health Service, the Smithsonian Institute, and the National Foundation of the Arts and Humanities. H.R. 5093 also appropriates $19.7 million in new fiscal year 2003 budget authority, which is $546 million above last year's enacted level and $800 million more than the President's request. The bill also provides $700 million in emergency FY 2002 budget authority for firefighting. Specifically, the bill provides $458 million for the National Wildlife Refuges, a $60 million increase over last year. National Park Service operations are funded at $1.6 billion, which is $117 million more than last year. In addition, the bill provides $368 million, an increase of $33 million, to reduce the Park Service's enormous maintenance backlog. Also, $96 million is appropriated for the ongoing restoration of the Florida Everglades. H.R. 5093 provides $377 million for the Federal land acquisition, as well as $154 million for Stateside land acquisition grants; $150 million for urban parks, forests, and historic preservation; and $100 million for State wildlife grants. Notably, the bill provides $50 million for landowner incentive and stewardship grants to help private property owners carry out habitat conservation measures required by the Federal Government. Those of us who represent districts in the West have expressed our concern year after year about proposals to increase Federal landholdings in our areas. Several years ago, I coauthored an amendment with the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) designed to put equal emphasis and dollars on maintaining the land and facilities the Federal Government already owns before acquiring even more. Much of the local opposition to Federal land purchases in the West arises from concern about revenues lost when land moves off local tax rolls and into Federal ownership. I am pleased, therefore, that the committee has increased the Payments in Lieu of Taxes by $30 million, to $230 million in this year's bill. In recognition of the important role energy conservation must play in strengthening our national security, the committee has also appropriated $985 million for energy conservation, and $300 million for weatherization and State energy grants. Furthermore, the committee has fully funded the President's request for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Finally, as a member from a State ravaged by wildfires in recent years, I would like to highlight the committee's efforts in the area of wildfire suppression in firefighting. The massive wildfires burning today throughout the western United States illustrate the grave need to actively and responsibly manage our forests. Fire suppression will require a solid commitment by Congress and concerted efforts to overcome the forces currently encumbering Federal forest managers. This bill takes an important step to restore healthy, productive forests by appropriating more than $2 billion to implement the National Wildfire Plan, including $919 million for fire preparedness, $581 million for fire suppression activities, and $669 million for other fire-related operations, such as hazardous fuels reduction, restoring burned-out forests, and preventing and treating the problems of invasive insects. On behalf of the brave men and women we depend on to fight wildfires and the citizens whose homes and livelihoods are threatened by wildfires, I thank the committee for the special attention it has devoted to this important matter. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations ordered H.R. 5093 reported by a voice vote on July 9. The subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), have requested an open rule, and the Committee on Rules is pleased that the resolution now before the House grants that request. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 5093. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.