Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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 myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule because it's a closed rule, which has been demonstrated with the observations of Mr. Lungren and Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Speaker, if someone commits a crime, they should be punished. Period. This is a bill that ends equality under the law by authorizing $10 million in grants over 2 years to State and local law enforcement to combat hate crimes targeted to special categories of people. It is a bad bill. This rule is a bad bill, not allowing for improvement, so I ask Members to oppose the rule and the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the Judiciary Committee, but more importantly, a former attorney general for the State of California.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule and the underlying bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Mr. Speaker, no one supports violent acts of crimes committed out of hatred toward a person based on personal characteristic whether that is ethnicity, gender, religion, weight, height, age, eye color, profession, socioeconomic background, or political beliefs. If someone commits a crime, they should be punished for that crime. Period. Instead, today, the Democrat majority has chosen to end equality under the law and to bring legislation to the House floor that creates special categories of people. Specifically, this bill allows Federal assistance to be given to State and local law enforcement to investigate and prosecute felonies that are believed to be motivated by prejudice based on actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. This bill also makes certain crimes a felony in cases where the perpetrator was believed to be motivated by bias and there has been a history of such bias-motivated violence. Separate treatment is afforded for crimes based on hate against protected classes of citizens under this bill, as opposed to crimes against victims that are not in a protected category. As we learned decades ago, separate is not equal. The Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a bad bill and should not be brought to the floor, but especially under the closed process that does not allow for any changes or improvements to the underlying bill. Eighteen thoughtful amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee yesterday, and sadly, not one of these amendments was allowed to be considered by the full House of Representatives. I am disappointed the Democrat majority again has missed an opportunity to live up to their commitment of allowing input under an open process. Mr. Speaker, how many special categories of people should this bill create? Have all characteristics for which there has been a history of bias-motivated violence been included in this bill? Should more categories be added and should some be excluded from this bill? Under this closed rule, these questions will not be answered today by Members of the House through the amendment process. Yesterday, Mr. Forbes of Virginia offered an amendment to this bill that would expand the list of protected categories of individuals to include members of the Armed Forces. If you believe the government should afford special treatment to crimes committed against special groups of citizens, then why not our military men and women? Why aren't those who volunteer to protect our country's freedom not afforded this protected status? Mr. Gohmert of Texas offered an amendment that would add law enforcement officers to the list. There have been several instances where gang members and would-be gang members have targeted and killed law enforcement officers because of their hatred towards them for choosing to go to work each day to protect our communities. Is committing a crime against law enforcement officers simply because their job is to uphold our laws a crime not deserving of special assistance to investigate and prosecute that crime? Crimes have been committed against senior citizens, and an amendment was offered to include them under the hate crimes legislation, but that amendment, too, was not allowed under this closed rule today. The question remains, if the Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act creates special protection, then whom should it create special protection for? Because this bill is being brought up under a closed rule, Members of the House and the people they represent will not have an opportunity to voice their opinion on this question through the amendment process. Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this closed rule, which not only gags the minority party, but gags all Members of the House, who will be denied the right to offer improvements to this legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose the gag order rule and the underlying bill that creates special categories of citizens and ends equality under the law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, 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, the National Science Foundation plays an important role in making sure that our Nation is a global leader in the fields of science and engineering. This Federal agency provides critical support for researchers, educators, and students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Specifically, Federal support allows American scientists to pursue high-risk, high-return fields that increase our Nation's competitiveness and scientific knowledge, and it ensures we are able to attract the brightest minds to our colleges and universities. One area in which the National Science Foundation is supporting U.S. leadership in the sciences is in the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory Program, or ``LIGO'' for short. The LIGO program, which operates an observatory in Central Washington in my district, is trying to detect for the first time the existence of gravitational waves, which have been sought by physicists around the world since they were theorized by Albert Einstein. Their discovery would lead to a greater understanding of the makeup of the universe and would help solidify our Nation's lead in the field of physics and astrophysics. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget provides for the expansion of LIGO and nearly doubles funding available for the LIGO Hanford Observatory to allow for more advanced research. I am pleased that the National Science Foundation Authorization Act supports this proposed expansion. The LIGO program is not only an important investment in our Nation's science capability, but it also has been an instrument of learning for local communities. The LIGO's Hanford Observatory was recently awarded one of the first ever Science Education Advocate Awards by the Washington State Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform, a partnership of public schools and science institutions. LIGO is an excellent example of the National Science Foundation's dedication to funding world-class research while also helping to grow students' interest in the sciences. Mr. Speaker, if America is to continue to lead the world in science and the pursuit of knowledge, funding for the National Science Foundation is essential. The underlying legislation authorizes the National Science Foundation for 3 years at strong levels needed to maintain and strengthen research through the foundation. But, Mr. Speaker, I am once again disappointed that the Democrat majority has once again missed an opportunity to provide consideration for the National Science Foundation Act under an open rule that would allow all Members of the House to come to the floor and offer an amendment during consideration of the bill. The National Science Foundation was last authorized in 2002, and at that time, the Republican majority allowed the bill to be considered under a truly open rule. I am disappointed that the Democrat majority has pledged a new era of openness but so far has not lived up to their commitment. Instead, it frankly has tried to change the definition of what an open rule is. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California 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, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me respond. I appreciate at least the short time that the gentleman yielded to me. I wish I could have made my point, but I will finish making it here. And that is if we had had an open rule, Mr. Buyer could have come to the floor and attempted to offer his amendment. Somebody would have probably raised the germaneness issue under a point of order, and I have all the confidence in the world that the Speaker would have ruled it out of order because that is what the rules are. But now, because we have established a policy here of going through structured rules, we want to give every Member in this body an opportunity to see if we should have this amendment considered that allows for disabled veterans who have businesses to be treated as others would under that section of the SBA Act. The second point I want to make in response to my friend's talking about tax relief, he talked about this majority's attempt, and I think he used the word ``attempt,'' or intention to address the AMT. I agree it needs to be addressed. There is a huge cost, as the gentleman knows; so we, in the past Congresses, have addressed it. But the tax relief issues that I was talking about in my remarks are already in place. They are already in place. They have been acted on. They were voted on, and the American people have enjoyed the tax relief. And they are going to go away if the majority follows at least the proposed budget that was passed by this body. It would result in the largest tax increase in American history, not only in the one that I cited but in others. So with that, the last thing I would like to mention to my friend, because he talked about veterans funding, we not only dealt with and resolved the concurrent receipt issue, but in the last 6 years, veterans funding has increased by 50 percent. We all know that it is important that veterans get their due care because of what they have given us and our freedoms. So I just want to set the record straight that in the last 5 years, there has been a great deal of increase. So we will be asking to vote, Madam Speaker, on the previous question. I will be asking for a ``no'' vote so that I can amend this rule to allow the House to consider an amendment offered by Mr. Buyer and provide the appropriate waivers. As I stated before, the Buyer amendment would authorize Federal contracting officials to treat small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans under the same contracting rules as those applied to businesses in the 8(a) program. Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the Rules Committee met yesterday, and they rejected, on a party-line vote, making it in order. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I wonder if my friend has any more requests for time. If he is prepared to yield back, I will make my closing statement and then yield back.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. Let me first talk about the issue of the structured rule and about Mr. Buyer's amendment, which I am going to call for a vote on the previous question so we can rectify what we didn't do in Rules last night, and that is simply this: The Rules Committee exists to make rules for debate on the floor of this House. We, on a regular basis, waive the rules for whatever. In fact, we are going to have the supplemental budget on the floor, and line 1 of that supplemental rule talks about waiving rules. So the point is this: If we had had an open rule, as I suggested last night, Mr. Buyer could have offered his amendment.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, the Small Business Administration was originally created to assist small businesses which are vital sources of job creation and economic growth here in America, but are often disadvantaged when it comes to access to capital. The Small Business Administration's two largest small business finance programs, the 7(a) loan guarantee program and the 504 loan program, have assisted thousands of small businesses every year that otherwise would not have attained a commercial loan for the purpose, amount and on the terms that small business borrowers need. The Small Business Lending Improvement Act enhances and streamlines these finance programs and makes the 7(a) program more affordable and accessible to borrowers and lenders by providing the Small Business Administration with the authority to use funds to reduce fees on both lenders and borrowers. This bill encourages increased lender participation in the 7(a) program by reducing application burdens for borrowers and lenders in rural areas and expediting the loan consideration time. This bill was favorably reported by the Committee on Small Business by a voice vote, and it enjoys strong bipartisan support. Madam Speaker, our Nation's small businesses are the engine that drives our economy. Small business represents 99.7 percent of all employers and have generated 60 to 80 percent of new jobs annually over the last decade. Clearly, we must act to help our Nation's small businesses continue to grow and create job opportunities. While I support the underlying Small Business Lending Improvement Act, more must be done to help small businesses overcome the challenges they face. Congress must act quickly to continue tax incentives for small business expenses that spur job creation and grow the economy. In the last Congress, I supported the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act, which extended through 2009 the enhanced section 179 small business expensing allowance. In 2007 the maximum allowance will be $112,000. But in 2010, this maximum amount will plummet to $25,000 without an extension of the current law. I am disappointed that the Democrat majority has chosen not to provide small businesses more significant tax relief in a form that has an opportunity to become law. We cannot afford to halt our Nation's economic growth and job creation opportunities by letting small business tax relief policies expire and become part of the Democrats' proposed largest tax increase in American history. Congress must also act to provide regulatory relief and make health care more affordable for small business employees and the self- employed. Madam Speaker, because of the way health insurance is priced and regulated, small businesses usually pay more for similar coverage than larger corporations, and I think this is simply unfair. It is currently estimated that 60 percent of those without health insurance work for or depend on small employers who lack the ability to provide health benefits for their workers. The high cost of health insurance prevents many small business owners from providing health insurance to their employees, and we must look for ways to make health care more affordable. One way is to expand Health Savings Accounts so that individuals can choose a health plan that best meets their needs. Health Savings Accounts allow individuals to make their own decisions about their health care, while building, at the same time, savings tax free to pay for future medical expenses. Another way to make health insurance more affordable and accessible is to allow small businesses to join together to use the marketplace to buy health insurance as a group. This would provide small businesses with greater bargaining power and lower health plan costs that larger companies now often afford. We must also provide fairness to self-employed individuals who purchase their own health insurance, but yet are treated differently under the U.S. Tax Code than those who receive health insurance benefits from their employer. So I call on this new majority to bring forth legislation to the House floor that not only makes improvements to small business lending programs, as this bill does, but that provides real tax and regulatory relief to small businesses and makes health insurance more accessible. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that this House Resolution 330 is a structured rule. I am even more concerned that an amendment offered by my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, was not made in order by the Rules Committee. In fact, it was rejected by the Democrat majority on a party line vote. Mr. Buyer's thoughtful amendment would authorize Federal contracting officials to treat small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans under the same rules as those applied to businesses in SBA's 8(a) program. Under House Resolution 330, Members are denied the opportunity to consider a full range of ideas on this floor to the Small Business Lending Improvement Act. Accordingly, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and against House Resolution 330.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) 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, I simply want to say this is a very good bill. It's a bill that has been worked on in the past Congress, and, obviously, in this Congress. It has strong bipartisan support, and all of the points that my friend from New York made in his previous remarks, I would like to associate myself with them. We need that. It just seems to me that during their whole process, when you have strong bipartisan support, under the rules of the House, all Members ought to have an opportunity to have some say in legislation as important as this that comes to the floor of the House, and not just those members within the committee of jurisdiction. I am simply pointing that out. It is a promise that was made by the new majority in the last election. I will withhold judgment, obviously, until after this first session is over to see if, in fact, those promises were kept. But as we go along here, seeing structured rules on bills that could very well be on a Suspension Calendar, I just think it's another opportunity missed. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from California if he has any more requests for time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I appreciate his acknowledgment that this is a structured rule and, therefore, Members cannot come down to the floor and ask for amendments to be made in order. But I just want to make this point, and we talk about it a lot in the Rules Committee. A lot of these bills have strong bipartisan support, and, yes, there may or may not be Members that are clamoring for amendments. But it would just seem to me to keep the process in a way where all Members, if they desire, should have an opportunity to come down because maybe something was said in debate, maybe a point that was made that was overlooked, to at least have the opportunity to change. When bills have strong bipartisan support, that is probably the best time to have an open rule. I respectfully tell my friend that there has been a change in definition of what open rules are. We could probably discuss that further because you have not had the open rules that we have had based on everybody having an opportunity. I would just simply say that bills like this, if you are going to have them on the floor under the regular order of a rule, then it should be an open rule. Otherwise, it seems to me that it should be on a Suspension Calendar, like we pass so many pieces of our legislation. That is just simply the point I am making. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, it is vital that the United States continue to grow more globally competitive in the areas of scientific research and technology. Federal and private investment in supporting research and development is essential to the health of our economy and our competitiveness as a Nation. We must plan for the future by investing in areas of basic research and science today. The underlying bill, H.R. 363, reaffirms our Federal commitment to increase America's global competitiveness in the areas of science, technology, research and innovation by supporting America's future scientific leaders. The central Washington area that I represent is home to the Pacific Northwest National Lab in Richland, a state-of-the-art research facility. The PNNL hosts a diverse staff of outstanding scientists, engineers and support professionals. Many of these individuals in the past have received the highest levels of recognition for outstanding achievements and discoveries in their field. At this lab, researchers use their expertise in the fields of environmental, radiological, biological and computational sciences to make important contributions to the scientific advancement of our Nation. The development of fuel cell technologies, biomass systems and radiation portal monitors are just a few of the areas where lab researchers are leading efforts to solve our national security and energy security challenges. I am pleased that this legislation includes efforts to help encourage collaborations between scientists and national labs. Specifically, this legislation allows the National Science Foundation grants to be used in collaboration with our national labs, which means more researchers at our labs will be eligible for Federal support. Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support, and this rule makes in order all amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules. However, Madam Speaker, I question the need once again for a structured rule when an open rule could have been granted for consideration of this bill. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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