Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a former member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would just communicate with my friend to at least keep his options open, if he wouldn't mind, later on and maybe we can revisit this. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of my friend from California, we have a number of requests for time, and I'm not sure that I have enough time. I wonder if the gentleman would entertain a chance to expand our time on both sides. If the gentleman would, I would like to ask unanimous consent that each side get an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Linder.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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. Let me talk about this process of defeating the previous question so we can take up the amendment regarding the FISA Act. This does not slow down the process at all. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker; this does not slow down the process at all. It simply makes in order, with the appropriate waivers, to discuss the amendment that was described by Mrs. Wilson from New Mexico. This is a very, very serious issue. It has been described by a number of people how important this is to our Intelligence Community. And by definition, it falls into the area of secure knowledge. But for those that are on the committees of jurisdiction, those that hear this on a regular basis, we need to act on it sooner than later. And we can act on it today without slowing down the process whatsoever by defeating the previous question, voting ``no'' on the previous question. I will be submitting an amendment that will be made in order, with the appropriate waivers, and we can debate the issue. It sounds to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is strong bipartisan support in order to achieve this end that has been described. We have the opportunity to do it now. We ought to do it before the August recess. And so, Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous question, we will give Members the ability to vote today on the merits of changing current law to ensure our Intelligence Community has the tools that they need to help protect our Nation from a potentially imminent terrorist attack. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill provides more than $53.5 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2008, which is over 6 percent more than last year's enacted level. While I support some of the increases in this bill that support our national priorities, such as counterterrorism and crime-fighting initiatives, I'm concerned that this bill falls in line with the spend now, tax later philosophy of the Democrat majority. This philosophy, as outlined in the Democrats' budget plan, puts each taxpayer on the path toward an average $3,000 increase in their Federal tax bill. This, once again, is another burden for the average taxpayer to bear. Rather than prioritizing spending and making the tough choices, this bill aims to solve our Nation's problems by simply spending more money. This also ignores real threats to our security that must be addressed. So, Mr. Speaker, one very serious problem that must be addressed before Congress adjourns next week, and that is changing current law so that our Intelligence Community has the tools it needs to monitor the telephone conversations of foreign terrorists physically located in foreign countries. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff earlier this month indicated that the United States remains vulnerable to another terrorist attack, and that recent chatter levels are near those levels prior to September 11, 2001. But because of our failure to respond to technological advances, current law ties the hands of our Intelligence Community since significant portions of our intelligence is being missed, intelligence that could prevent a future attack on our Nation. If we expect our Intelligence Community to do everything in their power under the law to protect our Nation against a future attack, then we must give them the resources and tools they need to stay ahead of those who wish to harm us. It is vital that we act immediately to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to clarify that the United States no longer will be required to get a warrant to listen to terrorists who are not in the United States. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. In order to clarify, change the law in order to clarify that the United States no longer will be required to get a warrant to listen to terrorists who are not in the United States. Each minute we wait to act, our Intelligence Community could be missing vital information, increasing our risk of another attack on U.S. soil. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question on the rule so that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act can be immediately modernized. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who is a leader in this body on national security issues.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the 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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. I think the gentleman, in his opening remarks, said something that currently should be expanded. Current law within HUD has an Office of Economic Development, and its responsibility, and I want to quote what its responsibility is, it ``works with public and private sectors as well as not-for-profit organizations to provide financial and technical assistance to local communities to develop and implement their own economic development and community revitalization strategies.'' Now, that's current law. If the gentleman believes that that agency shouldn't exist, then certainly he can introduce a bill, and we can have a worthy debate on that. But that is existing law. And it is within that context, then, as this relates to my district, which is a very diverse agriculture area, labor intensive in many of the specialty crops, but there is a new industry that is emerging in my district, and that is the wine industry. It's only about 35 years old. Historically, the wine industry in this country has always been in California. This is emerging in my district, and it has the benefit, then, of economic development to expand, to bring more tourists into this area, which means there's more hotels, more restaurants. That is the very definition of what economic development is all about. So let me be very, very clear on this. This project is fully consistent with requirements for projects normally and routinely funded under this program and existing programs. And I might add, it is named for an individual who has been widely recognized as the father of the Washington wine industry. He is the one who convinced farmers to transfer some of their lands to growing wine grapes. And, frankly, they've been very successful. There has been $5 million raised by other governmental agencies and quasi-governmental agencies to build this center. This is part of that. What it demonstrates to me is that there is a strong commitment of this wide community that identifies this as a local economic development project. So while there has been a lot of discussion with the earmarks this year, and I suspect we will have more of those discussions, I firmly believe that within existing laws and within the context of economic development, this falls into a category that I feel very, very comfortable with in saying that we ought to earmark dollars for this center because it will expand the economic development in this largely rural area that I have the privilege of representing. So, to me, it is an example of what the economic development initiative is supposed to be. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, let me restate again that it is existing law within HUD of this office that provides for economic development. I am simply following the law and exercising my right as a Member of Congress, who is part of the writing of the appropriation bills, to earmark what I think is important for my district. Now, if the gentleman wants to, as I mentioned in my previous remarks, if he wants to have a debate on whether that office ought to exist, well, I think that is worthy of debate. In fact, I would have suggested to the gentleman that maybe he should have defunded completely the whole office; therefore, he could have been at least consistent rather than picking out one project that I think is worthy, following what the requirements are of the Economic Development Office. So with that, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Flake amendment as it relates to the Walter Clore Center. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Snoqualmie Pass Land Conveyance Act would transfer an acre and a half of Forest Service land to the King and Kittitas Counties Fire District No. 51--also known as Snoqualmie Pass Fire and Rescue. This land would be conveyed at no cost, but would have to be used by the Fire District specifically for the constructon of a new fire station or it would revert back to the federal government.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this proposed rule would provide for consideration of the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education appropriations bill, the seventh out of 12 appropriation bills to be considered by the House this year. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that for the seventh time we are considering this appropriations bill under an open rule that allows every Member of the House the opportunity to come to the floor and to offer his or her amendment to the bill. Except for in the instance earlier this year when the House considered the final fiscal year 2007 spending bill, which allocated $463 billion of taxpayer dollars while denying all Members of the House the opportunity to amend the bill, this rule continues a long-standing tradition of openness on spending bills. Mr. Speaker, the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education appropriations bill provides over $607 billion to support the Federal Government's role in labor, health and education programs. Of this total, over $455 billion, or 75 percent, is comprised of spending for government programs that grow automatically every year with little congressional review. For the next fiscal year alone, these programs will increase by an estimated $54 billion, nearly 12 percent, which I might add, Mr. Speaker, is three or four times the rate of inflation. Without question, these programs pose the largest threat to our long- term economic health because they essentially run on autopilot with little accountability to the taxpayers writing the checks. If we want to get spending under control, it is vital that we take a hard look at these programs sooner rather than later. The remaining money in this appropriations bill is set by Congress each year. For the last fiscal year, $144 billion was provided to support the Federal Government's role in labor, health and education programs, but for the upcoming fiscal year, the underlying bill provides for $151 billion, an increase of $7 billion. Mr. Speaker, while I support some of the increases in the bill, such as an increased funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, I do have concerns with the overall increased spending level in this difficult budget year. I believe that Congress must always stop and remember that we are spending the American taxpayers' money when considering appropriations bills. Each time a decision is made to spend more money, taxpayers face a higher tax bill or the deficit faces an increase in leaving our children and grandchildren to foot the bill. Therefore, we must take a balanced approach that provides for the general welfare of our Nation while reducing the deficit. It's important that taxpayers are aware that under the Democrat majority's budget plan, each taxpayer faces an average $3,000 increase in their Federal tax bill in order to pay for the Democrats' spending spree over the next 5 years, as reflected in their budget. Throwing money at all of our Nation's problems will not make them go away. The American people expect more of Congress. They expect us to tackle the difficult issues, make tough decisions and lower the deficit through fiscal restraint. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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, 19 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee. Sadly, the Democrats only allowed one single amendment to be considered, as the ranking member pointed out. Even more concerning is that this rule provides that the Miller manager's amendment shall be considered as adopted once this resolution is adopted, if in fact it is adopted. They have carefully chosen to self-execute this amendment which does not allow for a separate debate or clarification on the amendment, and the maneuver prohibits Members from voting specifically on the Miller manager's amendment. Members should be aware that the Miller manager's amendment reduces the amount of short-term savings to taxpayers. In addition, if this rule is adopted, the misdirected College Cost Reduction Act can be fast-tracked through the Senate and therefore protected from filibuster. So I am asking my colleagues to not only vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule, but also to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can amend the rule to allow the House to consider the amendment offered by Mr. Castle of Delaware and provide the appropriate waivers. As the ranking member pointed out, the Castle amendment would simply end the entitlements in this bill. I think that is a very important policy statement. Further, the savings from these entitlements would go to increase the Pell Grants by $100 in the next 2 years and $50 through 2018. So by defeating the previous question, we will give Members the ability to vote on the merits of the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), another member of the Education and Workforce Committee.