Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank 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. Speaker, the intent of the original 1978 FISA law was to enhance Americans' security while at the same time protecting Americans' privacy. Recognizing that no responsibility of the Federal Government is more important than providing for the defense and security of the American people, Congress should be doing all it can to ensure that FISA continues to reflect the intent of the original law. In the nearly 30 years since FISA became law, we have seen tremendous advances in communications technology, such as the Internet, cell phones, and e-mail. However, under the original FISA law, our intelligence officials are not free to monitor foreign terrorists, Mr. Speaker, in foreign countries, without a court order, because of advances, as I mentioned, in communications technology. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again: Because of advances in technology, our intelligence officials are not free to monitor foreign terrorists in foreign countries. It is clear that the law is outdated and must be modernized to reflect changes in communications technology over the past three decades. In August, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, took an important step to close our Nation's intelligence gap. The Protect America Act passed only after repeated attempts by Republicans to give our Nation's intelligence professionals the tools and authority they need to protect our homeland. This action was long overdue, and this law marked a significant step forward in improving our national security. But, unfortunately, Democrats forced these needed technology tools to expire in 6 months. In November, the House Democrat leaders brought legislation to the floor that does not go far enough to reform outdated FISA laws. It weakens Americans' privacy protection and fails to permanently close our Nation's intelligence gap. A bipartisan, permanent solution is needed that shows all Americans and our enemies that the United States is truly committed to closing our Nation's intelligence gap. Yesterday, the Senate acted in a bipartisan manner by a vote of 68-29 to permanently close the terrorist loophole and ensure that intelligence officials are able to monitor communications of suspected terrorists overseas such as Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders. This commonsense solution would help keep our country safe from attack and should be acted on immediately and sent to the President to be signed into law. Mr. Speaker, House Democrat leaders need to stop dragging their feet. They need to end their delaying tactics, indeed, to let the House vote on the Senate-approved measure. Today, I am going to give Members of the House an opportunity to support the bipartisan measure that the Senate passed just yesterday. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House an opportunity to concur with the Senate amendments. By approving the Senate amendments, the bill can become law before the current extension expires in just a few days. We don't need to close the terrorist loophole just temporarily, Mr. Speaker. We need to close it permanently and update our Nation's surveillance laws in order to protect our Nation from another terrorist attack. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can permanently close the loophole. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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 urge all of my colleagues to join me today in acting to permanently change the way in which Washington spends taxpayers' money. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can address this very important House concurrent resolution. Mr. Speaker, with that I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, much has been talked about about this unfair closed rule dealing with this underlying issue, and that seems to be a recurring pattern, and I wish that it would change, but I don't hold out any hope that that will happen. But, Mr. Speaker, since House earmark rules were changed just last year, loopholes and concerns have been raised. Questions remain such as what is and what is not an earmark; when do earmark rules apply and how are earmark rules enforced? We have seen examples of Members trying to enforce earmark rules only to be told they can't because the rules don't apply, and we have seen earmarks repeatedly air-dropped into bills at the last minute that were not subject to transparency or scrutiny. Time and time again, Republicans have come to the floor advocating for additional earmark reforms, including stronger transparency and enforceability. Taxpayers also recognize the earmark process is broken and are outraged with wasteful spending. This has lead to an erosion of public confidence in Congress and could explain part of the reason why Congress' approval ratings are so low. It is clear Americans want Congress to act now and fix the broken earmark process. An earmark timeout is needed in order to get our fiscal house in order and restore public confidence. In January, House Republicans united together and called on House Democrats to join us in an immediate moratorium on earmarks and the appointment of a bipartisan, bicameral joint committee to reform the earmark process and eliminate wasteful spending. House Democrat leaders were invited to join with Republicans and take the sensible bicameral course of action and reform a broken earmark process, but Democrats have remained silent and chosen to continue the broken status quo. So, today, I am going to give all Members an opportunity to show their support for a bipartisan solution. Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately consider House Concurrent Resolution 263, which would establish a Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform. The Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform would hold hearings and make recommendations for the comprehensive reform of the earmark process. The resolution would also prohibit bills, resolutions, and conference reports containing earmarks requested by Members of Congress or the administration to be considered until the joint select committee has filed its report. Considering and adopting House Concurrent Resolution 263 today is a sensible, bipartisan solution that will bring genuine accountability and transparency to the spending process and will restore taxpayer trust and the integrity of Congress. Let me be clear: with my motion, every Member of this House will have a chance to publicly vote and take a stand and end earmark abuse and earmark secrecy. Every Member will vote on whether they believe the earmark process must be reformed. So, Mr. Speaker, we will do all that we can on our side to challenge the leaders to adopt this resolution. Until a moratorium or bipartisan committee is in place, House Republicans have adopted already a series of earmark reforms standards that we will adhere to, including barring Members from using taxpayer money named after themselves and prohibiting earmarks from being air-dropped into bills at the last minute to avoid transparency. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment, the letter sent from the Republican leaders to Speaker Pelosi on January 25, 2008, and extraneous materials immediately 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 Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), also a member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend from Utah, the gentlelady made the point in her initial remarks when she was talking about the reauthorization 2 years ago that it was done in a bipartisan way and it was done successfully. We know that this process, the administration already has some problems with it. And while they haven't issued a veto threat, they have some concerns. With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), also a member of the committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we must do all that we can to make education more affordable so that more Americans can achieve the dream of graduating from college. This year alone over $90 billion in Federal financial aid is available to students. However, with tuition costs on the rise, students and their families continue to face the inevitable question of how to pay for a college education. I believe a balanced approach is needed, one that increases transparency of higher education costs and targets aid to the neediest students while simplifying the financial aid process and addressing the growing number of burdensome reporting requirements colleges and universities face. I share the goal of increasing access to higher education, but I have a number of concerns with the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, and I believe improvements to the bill are needed. Mr. Speaker, apparently Members on both sides of the aisle also share this view because over 60 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee before the deadline. The last time that this House considered a comprehensive higher education reauthorization bill was in 1998. At that time, the Rules Committee reported a modified open rule, and as a result, all Members of the House had an opportunity to preprint their amendments in the Congressional Record and offer them on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this time the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee chose a closed process to consider a long overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Unfortunately, by reporting out a closed rule, Democrats on the Rules Committee once again chose to deny over 400 Members of Congress the opportunity to offer amendments to improve the bill. Furthermore, this rule makes in order five times as many Democrat amendments as Republican amendments. Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act is important, but by adopting this closed rule, an opportunity will be missed to make the underlying bill even better. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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 want to thank the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) 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. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, oppose the rule. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, for the last several months, Republicans have highlighted the need to change the House rules in order to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule. Clearly, the rules are flawed when it comes to enforceability of earmarks. House Republicans believe every earmark should be debatable on the House floor, but time after time Members have been denied the opportunity to challenge earmarks during consideration of the rule and the bill. Over the last several months, we have learned that the earmark rule does not apply when considering amendments between the Houses. This loophole has prevented numerous earmarks from being challenged in the energy bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion legislation, and the omnibus bill, which contained nearly 9,000 earmarks, including at least 150 earmarks that were air-dropped in the bill at the last minute. Madam Speaker, in October Parliamentarian John Sullivan sent a letter to Chairwoman Slaughter confirming that the current rules are flawed as they relate to earmarks. In his letter, he states the earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.'' Madam Speaker, I will insert this letter from House Parliamentarian John Sullivan into the Record. House of Representatives, Office of the Parliamentarian, Washington, DC, October 2, 2007. Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have advised the committee that language waiving all points of order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI'' should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules, notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure requirements of clause 9. In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause 9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process. Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment'' to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment-- whether they be floor amendments during initial House consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of a special rule.) The question of order on September 25 involved a special rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It had no application to the motion in the first instance. Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no application to the amendment in the first instance, the special rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). The same would be true in the more common case of a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text for the purpose of further amendment. Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment. In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the question whether a special rule waives the application of clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any application. In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all points of order except those arising under that rule--when none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its negative implication would be that such a point of order might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all points of order against provisions of an authorization bill except those that can only arise in the case of a general appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use language that yields a misleading implication. I appreciate your consideration and trust that this response is to be shared among all members of the committee. Our office will share it with all inquiring parties. Sincerely, John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian. .Madam Speaker, today I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule in order to close the loopholes and restore accountability and enforceability to the House earmark rules. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. At this time, I would like to recognize the ranking member of the Workforce Committee, Mr. McKeon, for 5 minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I do have another speaker.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, it is imperative that the over 200,000 miners in the United States work in a safe environment. Tragedies in recent years have highlighted the need to improve mine safety. In an effort to improve mine safety and prevent future tragedies, I was pleased that in 2006 the Senate unanimously, and the House overwhelmingly, passed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act, which was signed into law. This comprehensive, overwhelmingly bipartisan law represented a significant step, the first in some 30 years, forward in improving mine safety. But, Madam Speaker, it's unfortunate that today Democrat leaders have put bipartisanship aside and brought forth a rule to allow the House to consider legislation that threatens to jeopardize, not improve, meaningful achievements and efforts currently under way. The MINER law of 2006 is still being implemented, and to date, the Mine Safety and Health Administration has met all of its statutory deadlines in implementing the new law. However, Democratic leaders have chosen to bring forth the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, which ignores the progress that has been made, and further, provides no opportunity for stakeholder participation in the regulatory process and imposes unrealistic time requirements on employers. In addition, it is concerning that this bill would allow technology to be placed in mines that has not been deemed ``intrinsically safe'' by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. This has the potential, Madam Speaker, to result in serious safety issues, such as maybe an explosion. Another major safety concern is that this bill creates a two-tiered notification system in the event of an accident, with one set of reportable incidents being subject to be reported within 15 minutes and another set within an hour. Madam Speaker, current law requires a mine operator to call the Mine Safety and Health Administration within 15 minutes of a reportable incident or face a fine. This new confusing tiered system could potentially lessen protection to miners. Lastly, this bill does not empower all miners to participate in the development of safety policies and procedures through the formation of safety teams. Currently, miners who are not part of a union can be prohibited from working with management to promote safety. Representatives Kline of Minnesota and Wilson of South Carolina will be offering a substitute amendment later to end this discrimination between union and nonunion employees. All miners should be able to have a say when it comes to their safety, and this bill fails to do that. Before enacting additional legislation that could be counterproductive, Congress should allow current law to be fully implemented. Congress should also review the law first before dictating mine safety regulations that fail to advance safety, potentially threatens jobs, and impose over $1 billion in unfunded mandates on the mining industry. So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. 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. 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.