Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and with that I yield back my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, on December 4, Mr. Hoekstra offered a motion to instruct conferees that earmarks should be eliminated from a final conference report. This motion passed by a bipartisan vote of 249-160. However, despite bipartisan agreement that earmarks should not be included, this conference report contains more than $75 million worth of intelligence earmarks. Intelligence funding should be based on national security, not on special interests. I am concerned with the level of earmark funding in this authorization conference report, and I am concerned that the House rules are flawed when it comes to the enforceability of earmarks. House Republicans believe every earmark should be debatable on the House floor, and for the last several months we have made repeated attempts to close loopholes in the House rules as they relate to earmarks. So, Madam Speaker, today I will again be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately consider House Resolution 479 introduced by Republican Leader Boehner that would improve the House rules and allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills. We must defeat the previous question so that American taxpayers are no longer left wondering what hidden earmarks are contained in bills before the House and this Congress. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I inform my good friend from Florida that I have no requests for speakers; and if he's prepared to close, I will close on my side.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, authorizing the necessary resources for our Nation's intelligence community is one of the most important responsibilities of Congress. The attacks of September 11, 2001, showed us that we must be vigilant against the threat of terrorism, and our intelligence community is a critical part of protecting America from its enemies abroad. I have strong concerns about what appears to be an unfortunate and utter lack of bipartisan work on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. In addition to failing to incorporate Intelligence Committee Republicans in the development of this bill, the bill also fails to consider the input of Armed Services Committee Republicans. Serious concerns exist about the bill's mandate that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies be governed by the U.S. Army Field Manual on interrogation designed to cover combatants picked up in the battlefield. The Army manual was never designed to cover America's most dangerous enemies, such as Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. At a minimum, we deserve to know, Madam Speaker, how these new standards would impact intelligence operations and, ultimately, U.S. national security before rushing to attach them to this legislation. Proponents of this new requirement view this as a simple application of one organization's set of rules onto every other entity engaged in the activity. Madam Speaker, this isn't simple; I believe it's simplistic. And it could have dire consequences on our national security. To illustrate the logic at work here, why not require the NBA and Major League Baseball to play by the NFL rule book and use a football in their games? They all use a ball, after all, and if a football is good enough for the NFL, it should work for the NBA and for Major League Baseball. We all know that that would be a disaster, Madam Speaker, and before we require all Federal agencies to adhere to the Army manual, we should be certain it won't create a disaster for protecting our country in the war on terror. This bill also includes provisions that are questionable as to whether or not they will help improve America's security. Specifically, the House Democrats included language to fund and pursue research into an intelligence assessment of global warming. At a time when our Nation is engaged in a global war on terrorism, our intelligence community should not be required to focus on reports about climate change. I am also concerned that, despite bipartisan passage of a motion to instruct conferees that earmarks should not be included, this conference report contains more than $75 million worth of intelligence earmarks. Intelligence funding should be based on national security, not potential special interests. Instead of funding global warming studies, earmarks, and mandating Army Field Manual provisions, House Democrats should be taking steps needed to ensure that our intelligence officials are able to monitor foreign terrorists overseas. House Democrats have stalled the passage of a permanent update on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. The bipartisan Protect America Act expires in less than 2 months, and the American people deserve a permanent bill as soon as possible. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and namesake, 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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let's put this thing in perspective. This Democrat tax plan essentially allows the State sales tax deduction for those States that don't have a State income tax to expire. Residents of States with no income tax deserve to be allowed to deduct their State sales tax from their Federal income tax bill. To me, Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of fairness, which is why the Republican Congress acted in 2004 to restore the State and local sales tax deduction. This law provided tax fairness to Washingtonians and those who live in other non-income tax States for the first time in nearly 20 years. Now, this deduction, Mr. Speaker, expires in just days, at the end of this year. But this House will have the chance to vote today, Mr. Speaker, to extend the State sales tax deduction by joining me in voting ``no'' on the previous question. I will then amend the rule to allow an amendment to be offered on the underlying bill to extend the State and local sales tax deduction for 1 year, just for 1 year, as a matter of fairness. To all the Members from Washington, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota and Alaska, vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can give State sales tax deduction fairness for our constituents. This is a bipartisan issue, and we can achieve an extension today with a bipartisan vote against the previous question. Our constituents deserve fair treatment; so let's give this to them. The underlying bill that this rule makes in order is going to raise taxes by $50 billion. The very least we can do is to extend the sales tax deduction out of fairness. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear because there has been a great deal of discussion on the floor today about PAYGO. I think PAYGO has a lot of merit. I happen to disagree as it relates to this particular tax plan in the underlying bill, but there has been a great deal of discussion about PAYGO. So let me make perfectly clear this previous question vote does not waive the PAYGO rule. If the previous question is defeated and my amendment is made in order, the PAYGO rule is not waived. If a Member then wants to raise, when the issue is on the floor, a point of order against that amendment, they are perfectly able to do that. So my amendment does not waive the PAYGO rule. With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time and I am prepared to close if the gentleman from California is prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself 2 minutes, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the previous speaker, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He has always been one that believes that this House ought to do their work, and he has worked extraordinarily hard to make sure that this House does their work on the appropriation process. But I find it ironic that in the gentleman's remarks talking about what happened with a bill that President Clinton vetoed is because, at least the inference is there's a lot of extraneous stuff on that bill. My goodness, how history repeats itself, because here we are in the closing days of the first session of this 110th Congress, and what are we contemplating? There are so many rumors around here about an omnibus bill. And we know what omnibus bills are. There are so many things that are stuck in there to extract votes, generally they come out after the fact, embarrasses the institution, and yet we seem to be going down exactly the same path. I appreciate the gentleman for acknowledging that President Clinton did veto a permanent repeal of the AMT, which was simply the point that I made in the outset of my remarks. But I would just say, Madam Speaker, it seems to me we're going, that there will be a speech maybe later on this week, probably next week, about everything put into one package. And maybe we should take my friend from Wisconsin's remarks and just repeat them again, because history does repeat itself. With that, I will reserve my time.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. No. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is not correct on that, because in all of the budgets that we put together, there was never a provision that said that this income was something that we would use. That is, by the way, in your budget. You do it with a mechanism called the reserve fund which says you have to offset. But I will say this, and I will talk about economic policy and tax policy. Because of the tax policies we have put in place with the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, we have seen an extraordinarily strong economy in this country. I think that is pretty hard to refute, and so I just want to point that out to my friend. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I appreciate my friend from Oregon making his remarks. I am glad he acknowledges that President Clinton vetoed the permanent tax relief from the AMT. Let me make my points, and then I will be happy to yield. Ever since that time, I might point out to my colleague, there has been a 1-year fix. We know that issue is coming. We know that this issue is coming and it needs to be resolved. It hasn't been resolved, and we know that it won't be resolved by raising taxes on other people. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle can say no, these are adjustments. If they are adjustments, I hope they will acknowledge with me that what I am trying to do on the previous question is to make an adjustment for those States, for the people in States that don't have a State sales tax, to make that adjustment so they can have fairness across the board of being able to deduct sales tax from their Federal income tax. I will be making that motion, Madam Speaker, on the previous question. I am happy to yield to my friend.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a tax bill that would raise taxes permanently to give 1 year's worth of tax relief. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker. This rule provides for consideration of a tax bill that would raise taxes permanently to give 1 year's worth of tax relief. The AMT was enacted in 1969 to prevent a small number of wealthy taxpayers from using, at that time, legitimate deductions and credits to avoid paying taxes altogether. Back then, the tax affected only 155 people, the super-rich. The AMT was never adjusted to match inflation. Therefore, the AMT is affecting more and more taxpayers today. Without fixing the AMT problem, millions of taxpayers will be hit by the AMT, costing the average taxpayer about $2,000. When Republicans gained control of the Congress, we passed legislation to protect American taxpayers from the unintended consequences of the bracket creep of AMT. Unfortunately, this measure was vetoed by President Clinton. So here we are again today trying to temporarily protect taxpayers from the AMT. The longer we wait to fix the AMT, the longer it will take for the IRS to make the necessary changes in the tax forms and to process tax returns under the changes in the law. That is for this tax year. As of right now, the Democrat majority's failure to pass an AMT fix will force the IRS to delay processing tax refunds until mid-March at the earliest. This is likely to delay returns for over 20 million taxpayers who currently would be subjected to the AMT but who, with the patch, would not have to pay the AMT. This comes out, Madam Speaker, to about a $75 billion interest-free loan to the Federal Government from the taxpayer and paid for by the taxpayer. I support fixing the AMT trap, but it is a tax that was never intended to occur. It is going to affect millions of Americans. But the Democrat leaders in the House are making it nearly impossible to help these Americans. Let's just pass a bill to eliminate the tax. Stop using this tax relief bill to raise taxes by over $50 billion. Just as disappointing as the tax increases included in the bill is tax relief that is not included in this bill, and I am talking about a particular loophole in the tax law. I am dismayed that an extension of the sales tax deduction is not in this bill, the sales tax deduction for those States that do not have a State income tax. It is a matter of fairness. The AMT fix is for 1 year. I think it is only a matter of fairness to extend the sales tax deduction for those States who don't have a State income tax for 1 year. I attempted to offer an amendment in the Rules Committee last night, to allow me to offer an amendment to close this loophole or adjust this loophole on the floor today to extend the sales tax deduction again to those States that don't have State income taxes. It was defeated unfortunately on a party-line vote of 2-8 with every Democrat voting to block allowing this amendment to be made in order, including two Members from Florida, which is one of the eight States affected by this legislation. But there is another way, Madam Speaker, and the House will vote today on extending the sales tax deduction so it doesn't expire at the end of the year. If you are from Washington, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota and Alaska, join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question. I will then amend the rule so we can vote to extend the deduction and modify this loophole that I was talking about and ensure that our constituents in States that do not have a State income tax are treated fairly. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, understanding that the gentlewoman is prepared to close, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I must ask once again my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill, and to appoint conferees. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that a final veterans funding bill is sitting waiting to be acted on and that the Democrat leaders have bent over backwards to prevent this Congress in this session from passing the final bill. Democrat leaders in the House have refused to name conferees, and instead have chosen to put partisanship and politics ahead of ensuring our veterans' needs are met. They have been stalling since September and have ignored the fact that the new spending bill began October 1 of this year, nearly over 2 months ago. Since the beginning of the new spending year, our Nation's 8 million veterans have been waiting for their $37 billion in promised veterans benefits. Sadly, each day Democrat leaders choose not to act and move final funding forward, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Since the fiscal year began 73 days ago, our Nation's veterans are out $1.35 billion. What is even more disappointing is that this bill has almost unanimous support, unanimous support, from Republicans and Democrats; yet we are not being allowed to pass it into law, and we are getting to the waning days of this session. Meanwhile, our Nation's veterans, who have sacrificed so much on behalf of our country, are left paying the price. It is time, Madam Speaker, like in the underlying bill that this rule makes in order, to put partisanship and politics aside and work together to do what is in the best interest of our Nation's veterans. I see no better time than right now. By defeating the previous question, the House will send a strong message to our veterans that they have our commitment to provide them with the funding increase they need, deserve, and were promised. Once Democrat leaders appoint conferees, the House can move forward and pass a stand-alone veterans funding bill, and it will pass with strong bipartisan support. 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. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, who's a member of the Armed Services Committee and former member of the Rules Committee.