Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. This rule provides for the consideration of a bill to establish a national affordable housing trust fund. Members of this House share in the commitment to meet the housing needs of lower-income Americans. However, we differ on how to best achieve this goal. The bill that will be before us today creates a new, a new national housing trust fund, and, with it, a whole new level of Federal bureaucracy. There are already over 30 separate Federal programs designed to promote affordable housing. The new trust fund, created by the underlying bill, is modeled in large part on one of those existing programs, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. Why create a new level of Federal bureaucracy to administer essentially the same program that is already being successfully administered by State and local governments closest to the problem? It seems to me that ought to be a big subject of the debate that we have today. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this rule makes in order a substitute amendment offered by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas that would establish a national affordable housing grant fund program within the current HOME program. This proposal would meet the need and meet the goal of expanding rental and home ownership opportunities for low-income families without adding new layers of red tape. While I support the Neugebauer amendment being made in order, I am troubled that this is the only Republican amendment allowed to be considered under this restrictive rule. A total of 15 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee by the 10 a.m. deadline yesterday. One amendment offered by Representative Capuano of Massachusetts to change the short title of the bill to the ``Barney Frank National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007'' was withdrawn. Out of the remaining 14 amendments, seven were submitted by Democrats and seven were submitted by Republicans. This rule makes all seven amendments offered by Democrats made in order, but just one Republican amendment. If this rule is adopted, many thoughtful ideas will be denied the opportunity to be considered on the House floor today. Unfortunately, shutting out amendments offered by Republicans has become the norm for the Democrat Rules Committee. Americans want to see Members on both sides of the aisle work together to address the problems our Nation faces. Unfortunately, with this restrictive rule, the Democrat majority has chosen to deny millions of Americans a voice on several significant issues related to meeting the affordable housing challenges that lower-income Americans face. Therefore, I must urge my colleagues to vote against House Resolution 720. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor) 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. Speaker, I had requests from two Members, but I see they are not here. If the gentlelady has no more speakers, I will be prepared to close on my side.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The rules only cover appropriation bills.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I appreciate that he has a little bit different view than I have. I would ask the gentleman, what bills are covered by the earmark rule, transparency rule, that you are talking about today? What bills?

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans believe that every earmark should be debatable on the House floor. Republican Leader Boehner has introduced a proposal to improve the House rules and allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills. To date, 196 Republicans have signed a discharge position to bring this measure to the House floor for a vote. Unfortunately, we are still 22 Members shy of what is needed. Therefore, I not only would encourage all Members of the House to sign the discharge position, but I will also be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to the House to allow the House to immediately consider House Resolution 479 introduced by Republican Leader Boehner. It is vital that the House of Representatives act today and pass House Resolution 479 so that we can show American taxpayers we are serious when it comes to earmark transparency. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from New York if he has any other speakers, and if not, I am prepared to yield back if he is.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act, which would authorize $1.25 billion to create three new regional commissions and replace two other regional commissions. These five regional commissions would be Federal-State partnerships that would provide grants to State and local governments to promote infrastructure and economic development. While I believe that comprehensive, regional approaches to addressing infrastructure and economic development needs often can be beneficial, I am not convinced that creating five commissions and the layers of bureaucracy associated with them is necessary to provide grants to communities most in need. The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act was originally considered by the House on September 17 under suspension of the rules, which limits debate, bars amendments and requires a two- thirds vote for passage. Bills typically considered under suspension of the rules are bills and resolutions to name post offices and Federal buildings, congratulate sports teams and to raise general awareness of other issues. Generally, bills authorizing $1 billion in government expansion are not considered under a process with limited time for debate and no opportunity for amendment, but that is what the Democrat majority chose to do with the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act last month. Because of concerns either with the underlying bill or with the way in which this bill was originally considered, it failed to garner a two-thirds vote and did not pass under suspension of the rules. This closed rule does provide for more time to debate the merits of the underlying bill, but, unfortunately, it also shuts Members out from offering amendments to make this perhaps a better bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will be more than happy to tell you. We think that the intent on both sides of the aisle was to have all earmarks have a transparency to them so we know where those earmarks come from. Under this rule, we are self-executing an amendment, and that amendment is not covered, is not covered under the transparency. Now, I don't know if there is something within that bill that has earmarks that aren't being reported, but Leader Boehner's resolution simply would make this subject to transparency. That is all we are saying. That is all that we are saying. I thank the gentleman for yielding on this point.

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the restrictive rule. 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, for the past several weeks my colleagues on the Rules Committee and I have called for a vote on the previous question and will be doing so again today. Why? Because we are concerned that the House rules are flawed when it comes to the enforceability of earmarks. Republican Leader Boehner has a proposal that will improve the House rules and allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills. I am asking that my colleagues 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. By defeating the previous question, the House will still be able to consider the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act today, but will also be able to address earmark enforceability in order to restore the credibility of the House. I am hopeful today will be the day my colleagues will defeat the previous question and, in doing so, will send a strong message to American taxpayers that this House is serious when it comes to earmark transparency. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the previous speaker, my friend from Oregon, that the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), is a very, very thoughtful individual. I have worked with him on some issues, and I would agree with that. I think Members would also agree with me when I say that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) is also a very thoughtful individual and somebody that you can work with on a bipartisan basis. When somebody like Mr. Forbes comes to the Rules Committee and tells us that he was given a commitment about concerns that he felt needed to be addressed in this legislation and was given the assurances that they would be addressed, not necessarily solved but at least be addressed, I think you would have to say that he was acting in very good faith. I think this sends a very, very strong message for Members that want to work in a bipartisan way and then get treated as Mr. Forbes said he was treated. I think that is not good for the institution. So I just want to, Mr. Speaker, reiterate once again what happened. The reason that there were no amendments substantive to the issue of the concerns that were submitted by Republicans to the Rules Committee is because the ranking member on the subcommittee dealing with this issue felt that the commitments that were given to him were not carried out. There were no, apparently, discussions of what was going into the manager's amendment. Again, I am not suggesting Mr. Forbes would have been totally happy, but he could have offered an amendment to address those concerns. He was denied that opportunity simply, simply because he felt the commitment that was given to him when the bill came out of the Judiciary Committee was not carried through. So it is for that reason, that reason that we probably won't have as robust a debate on this issue, and in all likelihood we won't have the kind of legislation that needs to go forward in a bipartisan manner on something where everybody agrees that the intent of this legislation is what everybody agrees on a bipartisan basis needs to happen. I regret that. It is for that reason that I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule. Mr. 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, if the gentleman will yield further, I just want to, Mr. Speaker, tell my colleagues that there was no Forbes amendment in front of the Rules Committee, so I can't even pass judgment whether it addressed the concerns that he had. He did not submit an amendment to the Rules Committee. He did not submit an amendment to the Rules Committee because he was given the assurances that the concerns that were raised when the bill came out of committee would be addressed. While the gentleman is probably talking about a potential amendment, nobody on the Rules Committee saw the amendment, because the amendment was not submitted to the Rules Committee because he felt his concerns were not addressed. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to clarify that. When he talks about the Forbes amendment, there is, or was no Forbes amendment in front of the Rules Committee yesterday.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding for this exchange, because I think it is important. This issue is very, very important because we are talking about ultimately a portion of the security of our country, and I think we need to address that in a bipartisan way. I am simply pointing out, in testimony yesterday in front of the Rules Committee, Mr. Forbes was given the assurance when the bill left the Judiciary Committee, and I don't think that the gentleman is on the Judiciary Committee, but he felt that he had a commitment that those concerns be addressed. Now, having concerns addressed and being totally satisfied are two different things. If they weren't satisfied, then you could offer an amendment to make the adjustments and you could debate those issues. The point I am making is that Mr. Forbes felt that the commitment that was given to him to make those adjustments and those concerns were not fully addressed; therefore, he didn't submit any amendments to the bill. I am not suggesting that all of his concerns should be in the manager's amendment; I am simply suggesting that he was denied the opportunity, in his mind, to have these concerns addressed.

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