Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman has always been open to debate. I am glad he has given us advice on maybe what we want to put in the motion to recommit. One of the easiest ways to do that obviously would be to have made that amendment in order. He had nothing to do with that decision. That was a decision of the Rules Committee. I wish it had been made in order. An amendment was offered to make that in order and was defeated on a party-line vote.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself 2 minutes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to my friend from Massachusetts when he outlined the amendments that were made in order and the substance of some of those amendments to be debated and also suggesting that he would oppose some and accept others. I have always admired that in him when he comes up to the Rules Committee and feels that that's part of the legislative process. The point that the gentleman from Texas was making, apparently he had two amendments, and one of them the gentleman from Massachusetts is going to work with him on; so that one will be resolved. But the gentleman from Texas felt very strongly that the amendment that was not made in order, really the only amendment that had any substance was not made in order, was his amendment, and we don't get a chance to debate it. I think that's a valid argument from his perspective. And I know the gentleman from Massachusetts had nothing to say obviously about that. So I just wanted to make that point, that, yes, there are a lot of amendments that were made in order. Some of the amendments that were made in order will be addressed later on. But I wanted to make the point of what the gentleman from Texas had made that his amendment was not made in order.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for the consideration of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, aimed at reforming mortgage lending practices in order to prevent subprime mortgage problems in the future. I support efforts to better protect homeowners through simplified borrower disclosure, greater focus on deceptive practices, and enhanced education, training and oversight of lenders. While I recognize that several significant changes were made to address some of the most concerning parts of this legislation during the committee markup, additional improvements and clarification are still needed. Consumers must have protections without unduly restricting credit opportunities or creating enormous liability for the mortgage lending industry. We must improve the mortgage process to empower consumers to make good choices among competitors, not limit options for them. Also, we must ensure that this bill does not hurt the consumers that it is intended to help, especially those consumers with less than perfect credit histories that hope to achieve the American Dream of homeownership. The current climate of rising defaults and foreclosures, especially in the subprime market, has shown us that poor lending decisions and abusive lending practices must be addressed. And while we must deal with the bad actors in the lending industry, let's not forget about the good lenders and investors that have helped thousands of families successfully purchase their homes. This bill is a step in the right direction, but improvements should be made as this legislation moves forward. I was hoping that the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee would see fit to provide an open rule for consideration of this bill. Under an open rule, Members could come to the floor and offer amendments in their effort to perfect this bill. While this rule allows several amendments to be offered, it is unfortunate that this restrictive rule also prevents Members of Congress from offering amendments on the floor during debate of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Financial Services Committee (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me clear up this issue here about the time requirements. The rules of the House say there shall be a 72-hour, or 3-day layover on these bills. That was waived. That was waived by the majority party. Then as a courtesy in their ``new directions,'' they say it should be at least 24 hours. So here they are even waiving a promise of a waiving of a rule of 3 days. So I wanted to clarify that. It is supposed to be 3 days, that is the premise from which we start, and then we come down to a promise of 24 hours. They are even waiving that promise.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

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 oppose the previous question and the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks, my colleagues on the Rules Committee and I have highlighted the need to pass a stand-alone veterans funding bill. Today is our last opportunity to pass a veterans funding bill and get it to the President before Veterans Day. The veterans funding bill passed this House this summer with over 400 votes and passed the Senate with over 90 votes. A final veterans funding bill is sitting, waiting to be acted on, but Democrat leaders have bent over backwards to prevent Congress from passing the final bill. They have been stalling since September and have ignored the fact that the new spending year began October 1 this year. Every day the Democrats choose not to act to move this bill forward, our Nations's veterans lose $18.5 billion. Since the fiscal year began 40 days ago, our Nation's veterans are out $740 million. It has now been nearly 150 days since the Veterans funding bill was approved by the House. The Senate passed a similar bill and appointed its conferees 2 months ago. Sadly, the Democratic leadership in the House has refused to name conferees and instead has chosen to put partisanship and politics ahead of ensuring our veterans' needs are met. Once Democrat leaders appoint conferees, the House can move forward and pass the stand-alone Veterans funding bill. Three weeks ago, Republican Leader Boehner took a positive step towards naming House Republican conferees. Now, the Speaker must follow suit. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the MilCon and Veterans Affairs funding bill, and appoint conferees. By defeating the previous question, the House will send a strong message to our veterans that they will have our commitment to providing them the funding increase they need, deserve and were promised. 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, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a classmate of mine, Mr. English.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a fellow colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions from Texas.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking and time is running out. At the end of the year, many of the important tax provisions that have helped our economy grow will expire. Unless Congress acts and gets a bill to the President that he will sign into law, workers, families and small businesses will face a tax increase this year. Congress can either accomplish this the easy way, by working together in a bipartisan manner, or it can be done the hard way, by dragging out the process, passing a bill in the House that the Senate won't even consider and the President has threatened to veto, only for the Democrats then to rush a bill to the floor at the last minute that no one has had time to read and that should have been considered in the first place. I'm disappointed that the Democrat majority has chosen the hard way on this and so many other pieces of legislation this year. The parts of this bill that prevent tax increases are good, and I support most of them, Mr. Speaker. I support ensuring over 20 million Americans are not caught up in paying the AMT. Over the years, this tax burdens more and more middle-income Americans, clearly an unintended consequence of the original bill. I support extending the State and local sales tax deduction so that taxpayers in my State of Washington and other States without a State income tax will continue to be able to deduct State sales tax from their Federal tax bill. I support extending tax incentives to enhance the affordability of higher education, which will help more middle-income students access post-secondary education. I support extending an important above-the-line deduction to help teachers contain the costs of out-of-pocket classroom expenses like books, supplies and computer equipment. I support, Mr. Speaker, extending the research and experimentation tax credit in order to allow the United States to remain a global competitor. And I support keeping taxes low for small businesses. These are reasonable parts of the bill, and I have supported them in the past, I support them being extended this year, and I support seeing that they become made into permanent law. However, I cannot support a bill that temporarily stops certain tax increases by permanently raising other taxes. Let me repeat that. I cannot support a bill that temporarily stops certain tax increases by permanently raising other taxes. It's not right and it's not fair. But the Democrat majority is using temporary tax relief as an excuse to permanently raise taxes. Under this bill, you may get to keep one of your hard-earned dollars in your right-hand pocket, but the Federal Government is right there taking a dollar out of your left-hand pocket year after year. This is the wrong approach. Unfortunately, if Democrats have their way, every American will face a tax increase sooner or later. If not this year, then next. If not next year, then certainly in 3 years when tax relief enacted by the Republican Congress will expire, tax relief that lowers rates for every single taxpayer in America. If these tax cuts expire, taxpayers will be forced to pay $3.5 trillion more to the Federal Government over 10 years, and the Democrats plan to spend every dime of it on more government spending. But, Mr. Speaker, don't take just my word for it. Look at the budget the Democrats adopted earlier this year. When Democrats were faced with the choice of how best to balance the Federal budget, they flat out rejected the option of spending less and declared their allegiance to raising taxes. The Democrat budget would impose the largest tax increase in American history. Their budget doesn't extend relief from the marriage tax penalty. It doesn't extend the $1,000 child tax credit, it doesn't end the death tax, it doesn't fix the AMT for middle-class families, it doesn't protect the lowest tax rate, and it will force lower-income Americans who today pay no income tax, thanks to the Republicans' tax relief, to start paying taxes again. The Democrats will call this tax relief bill a tax relief bill. They will deny that they are raising taxes, but the plain hard facts are this bill that this rule would make in order would raise taxes by over $80 billion. Congress doesn't need to be raising Americans' taxes to pay for Democrat plans to pay for more and higher government spending. Don't raise taxes; reduce spending. Several of my Republican colleagues that serve on the Ways and Means Committee submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to make this a better bill, a bill that would pass the House on a strong bipartisan basis, pass the Senate and could be signed into law. Amendments to increase the teacher tax credit from $250 to $400, permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, and strike tax increases from the bill that were denied by the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee. I am especially troubled that an amendment offered by my colleague from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) to strike language in the bill that gives special treatment to State legislatures was not made in order. It is difficult to understand why this Democrat bill would allow State legislators to earn tax-free income. For example, in my State of Washington, the State legislators in Olympia have increased spending by 33 percent since 2005 and raised taxes by $500 million, not exactly behavior that deserves rewarding them with a special Federal tax break. A Washington Post article on November 6 says: ``An official of the nonpartisan congressional Committee on Joint Taxation estimated that the yearly deduction could reach $55,000 for a State lawmaker whose legislature declared enough pro forma days.'' Of all the people in America, State legislators are not at the top of my list and probably not at the top of the list for most Americans. But apparently allowing State legislators tax-free income is a top priority of House Democrats. This provision was slipped into the bill at the last minute, and it only seeks to benefit a few. It will cost American taxpayers an estimated $4 million. It should be removed from this bill. This is a bad rule that brings a bill to the floor that is bad policy. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 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. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is with great frustration that I must speak out in opposition to the US-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. I am a strong supporter of fair trade and have voted to support every trade agreement during my time in Congress. The benefits of these agreements are clear. They lower barriers and open new markets for Central Washington farmers, and they create new opportunities for manufacturers and producers in Washington state and across the nation. Given a chance to compete fairly and our farmers will lead the world in exporting high-quality fruits and vegetables. That is why I deeply regret the totally unfair provisions in this Peru agreement relating to asparagus. This agreement forces our American asparagus growers to pay the price for a failed anti-drug effort in South America that has actually resulted in more cocaine production. The Peru Trade Promotion Agreement is preceded by the Andean Trade Preferences Act of 1991. This Act was a unilateral granting of access to American markets for the Andean countries of South America. Its purpose was to allow legal manufacturing and farm exports into our country in an effort to fight and reduce drug production and shipments from these countries. It has been an abysmal failure. Since this one- way trade system was put in place, cocaine production in the Andean countries is actually higher now than when the agreement was put in place. However, since the Andean Act was enacted, imports of fresh asparagus from Peru went from 4 million pounds a year to over 87 million pounds in 2006. That's a 2000 percent increase! This flood of US-subsidized foreign imports cut asparagus production in Washington state from $200 million in 1990 to approximately $75 million today. American growers were given no transition period. No time to adjust. No consideration whatsoever. Corporations have closed asparagus processing facilities in the United States, only to reopen them in Peru. What our government's policies have done is magically create an industry in a foreign country under the flawed logic that Peruvians would grow asparagus instead of cocaine--when the two crops are grown in two totally different regions of that country. When the United States and Peru completed negotiations on this agreement in December of 2005, I expressed my disappointment with the trade deal and the treatment of asparagus. This was after months of meeting with and encouraging American negotiators to fix it. I regret that in the almost two years since then, the attention of the Administration to addressing the injustice wrong done to domestic asparagus growers has been non-existent. It's been up to those few of us in Congress, both Representatives and Senators, who represent asparagus producers to work together to try and bring some degree of fairness. We are making progress and there is movement in the right direction, but we are still a long ways from it becoming reality. I hope we are successful in our efforts and I would welcome the attention and assistance of the Administration. American asparagus growers deserve better than to be ignored and placed at a competitive disadvantage by their own government. Until fair treatment and assistance to American asparagus growers is a reality, I am unable to support this agreement.