Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I would add further compliments to the final rule that our distinguished chair is bringing to the House as the chair in the majority, and to thank him again for his leadership of the Rules Committee and his friendship as we have progressed along. Having learned the things that I have from him, I am sure now that I will be able to teach him a thing or two in the next majority. Thank you very much, David, for your friendship. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that provides an expedited process for the States of Washington and Oregon and the four Columbia River treaty tribes to manage aggressive California sea lion predation of endangered salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River. This bill is the result of months of collaboration with my colleague from Washington, Mr. Baird, and I thank him and his staff for their diligent efforts in working with me to develop this legislation. The Columbia River is the heart of our region, and runs right through my district in Central Washington state. This river is critical for power production, irrigation, transportation, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat. This river is renowned for its salmon, which are an important part of the regional economy and way of life, and of great cultural significance to the Native American people of the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, at this time, we have a number of salmon and steelhead runs that are listed as threatened and endangered under the Endangered Species Act in our region. Many of these are in the Columbia River and its tributaries. Our region is working diligently to restore healthy salmon runs, and we have made great progress over the last 10 years. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars each year in direct spending in support of salmon recovery. I have long argued that we must take a balanced approach to salmon recovery that recognizes the many factors that influence their life cycle. This includes the so-called ``four Hs''-- hydropower, hatcheries, harvest, and habitat--as well as things like ocean conditions and the high level of predation by certain birds and marine mammals. This legislation is about addressing the latter problem. We have witnessed dramatic increases in the number of California sea lions over the past few decades. In fact, their numbers have grown six- fold to nearly 300,000 coast wide. While these animals have always been present in and around the Columbia River, we have seen them appear in growing numbers in recent years--especially during the peak of the spring salmon run. A few years ago, just a few sea lions were witnessed in the tailrace below Bonneville dam, where the salmon tend to gather before entering the fish ladders. Now, it is becoming the norm to see nearly 100 of them. Recent estimates by the Army Corps of Engineers indicate that California sea lions are responsible for eating more than three percent of the run as observed at Bonneville dam. This does not include the numbers of salmon eaten elsewhere in the lower Columbia River by sea lions. Despite efforts by federal, state, and tribal officials to discourage the sea lion predation through aggressive nonlethal hazing, the sea lions appear to becoming more brazen with each passing year. It is clear that lethal removal of some of the worst actors is necessary to deter this sea lion behavior and to help recoup more of our substantial investment in salmon recovery. Similar conflicts between protected marine mammals and ESA-listed fish have occurred in the Northwest before. In fact, the Marine Mammal Protection Act was amended in 1994 to address the problem of California sea lions eating returning winter steelhead at the Ballard Locks in Seattle. The process established by that amendment allows states to apply to the Commerce Department for legal authority to remove marine mammals under certain conditions. However, in practice, the application process takes 3 to 5 years to come to a conclusion. The Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act, which I am introducing today, would provide expedited authority for states and tribes to manage the sea lion problem while the states concurrently apply for longer-term authority through the established process. There are numerous protections in this proposal to ensure that only a limited number of sea lions are removed. In addition, the permit holders would have to determine that the sea lion in question has preyed upon salmon stocks and has not been responsive to nonlethal hazing methods. The proposal calls upon the Commerce Secretary to report to Congress on the need for amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act to address conflicts between protected marine mammals and fish species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. In addition to Mr. Baird, I am pleased to be joined today upon introduction by Mr. Walden and Mr. Dicks. This proposal is a measured, common-sense response to the very real problem of increasing California sea lion predation of threatened and endangered salmon, and I hope my colleagues will allow us the opportunity to move this legislation expeditiously before the end of the 109th Congress.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just want to touch on a couple of issues that were brought up here, and hopefully set the record straight as to what has happened. There has been talk about Medicare. I just remind my colleagues that the Medicare legislation that had the prescription drug benefit was passed by a prior Congress. To be sure, it was put in place and implemented during this Congress, and that was done because we were really blazing new ground with that Medicare prescription drug reform and the Medicare reform in general. I might add, too, Madam Speaker, for 40 years when the other side controlled this body, there was no prescription drug benefits available at all for anybody on Medicare. So this was new ground, and we put into place, I think, some very innovative reforms that, frankly, have proven to have been very well accepted by people across the country. I think the most important part of this Medicare reform was that we made it voluntary. It was not a mandatory program. To suggest that people once they turned 65 cannot make decisions, I think, is wholly underestimating senior citizens. In my district, for example, when the Medicare plan was fully put in place there were 30 plans to choose from in my district. Seniors had a number of choices. I had a forum where a number of seniors came up, asked questions and then made their decisions before the sign-up time. They will have another opportunity to sign up, again, of course in November. While this program is only in place now for less than a year being implemented, by and large, across the country, it is being well accepted because it provides the coverage that was not available before, and I think that point needs to be emphasized. I might add that when we reformed this program there was a lot of criticism about the cost of this program. Sure, anytime you have a Federal program, it is going to cost some money, but their substitute plan cost infinitely more than what our plan was that we put into place. So I just wanted to set that record straight, and I think it is important. Secondly, I want to talk a bit about border security and the overall war on terror. I just remind ourselves, earlier this month, we passed the 5-year time period when we were brutally attacked by terrorists on 9/11/2001, and let us remind ourselves, we have not been attacked in this country since that time. Other countries have faced international terrorism in London, in Spain, and in Indonesia comes to mind right off the top. Same people are behind this as international terrorist group. So what we have done is to try to secure our country, and since we are involved in this war on terror, I think it is clearly in our best interests to try to engage them on their turf. We have been successful thus far, but as President Bush has said, this is going to be a long, long process, but keep in mind, there is no question that the ultimate target in this international war on terrorism is our way of life. In response to that, we have secured our border. There is absolutely no question about that. In some cases, it was passed with bipartisan support, and in some cases, it was not, but the record, Madam Speaker, I think needs to be said, and that is that we are doing things to secure our border and make America safe. The fact that we have not been attacked I think is credit to those that do that work to secure us on the homeland security, on the border, the first responders. They have all responded. Our intelligence community is much, much more robust than it was before and that has added to our security. So, Madam Speaker, there has been a lot that has been accomplished in this Congress, and I think that we can go into this break before the elections with a very high head.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, there have been several references today and in the past few days about the issue of the minimum wage. I think that we need to set the record straight as exactly what this House has done regarding that issue, because the issue has been around some time. Before we went on our district work period in August, the week before we left at the end of July, this House did pass, did pass and sent over to the Senate, an increase in the minimum wage. Yes, it was attached to other bills, or other issues. That is not anything that is unusual in this body. That goes on all of the time. But what were those other issues? Those other issues provided tax relief for certain Americans. One of that was sales tax deductibility, for example, for States that do not have an income tax. My State happens to be one of those. Broad support in both Houses of the Congress. The other was the, not the elimination, but capping of the death tax. That has support in both Houses. It unfortunately does not have the required filibuster-proof support in the other body. But that was part of that tax bill. There is also a provision for research and development tax credits to keep our economy moving. That has broad support in both Houses. That was part of that tax bill. And then there were some other provisions in that also. Attached to that, yes, was the minimum wage. I voted for that. I have to say, Madam Speaker, I am not one that is generally in favor of the minimum wage. But I felt coupling that together with these other important measures to keep our economy going, to take care of those taxpayers in States that do not enjoy broad parity with other States, I thought it was important. So if the issue then is to pass a minimum wage, it seems to me the message ought to be sent to the other body, because that bill is still waiting over there. All they have to do in the final days of this session is to stop the filibuster and pass that bill over there, and we will have the minimum wage increase that we keep hearing over and over and over. So, Madam Speaker, I just wanted to set the record straight that this House has acted on that, and I think in a very responsible way. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1045 provides that suspensions will be in order at any time through the legislative day of September 29, 2006. Further, it provides that the Speaker or his designee will consult with the minority leader or her designee on any suspension considered under the rule. This is the last week before Congress will recess until November so that Members can return home and spend their time meeting and working with those that they represent. Currently, there are several necessary and noncontroversial bills that are waiting consideration by the House of Representatives. It is important that the House be able to consider these bills before adjourning. The suspension authority provided in this resolution will ensure that Congress can complete some additional key work by allowing for consideration of a number of important bills through the legislative day of September 29, 2006. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1045 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (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 strongly support ensuring that only American citizens vote in our Nation's elections. The right to vote of all Americans is diminished if ineligible and illegal votes are cast. That is the goal and intent of this bill, which is why I vote to move this bill forward today. There are provisions of the bill, however, that have me greatly concerned about the impact it would have on Washington state voters who are required to vote by mail. The bill would mandate that voters photocopy their driver's license and mail that copy in with their ballot. This places a heavier burden on mail voters than poll voters. It creates a higher hurdle for mail voters to get their vote counted. And it raises serious questions about personal privacy and the potential for identity theft. These requirements are not acceptable and must be addressed during any conference committee talks with the Senate. Chairman Ehlers has given his assurance that the mail voting provisions will be addressed in a conference, and specifically that the views of Washington's Secretary of State will be heard. I appreciate this commitment and believe there are certainly far less burdensome ways to ensure only citizens are casting mail-in ballots. Clearly, Washington and Oregon stand out among other states when it comes to voting by mail and federal law must respect differences among the fifty states. Action needs to be taken to ensure only citizens are casting ballots in elections and that is why I vote to move this bill forward today, but I will oppose and vote against any final bill or conference report if my concerns on the mail voting requirements are not addressed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 459) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of two very important bills. One bill is a pension reform bill that has been worked on for over 5 years on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. It is a very important piece of legislation and it needs to pass. The other bill is a bill that has two very important provisions: tax provisions dealing with the death tax and raising the minimum wage. And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am curious by hearing the debate. I kept hearing on the other side of the aisle their talking about ``just give us an up-or-down vote.'' Well, I think we are sent here by our constituents to do more than vote. We are here to enact legislation. And the expectation, the expectation is that the second dealing with the tax provisions and the minimum wage will pass not only this body, but will pass the other body and become law. I think that is much, much better service to our constituents rather than just saying give us a vote up or down and knowing that it may not pass both bodies. This will pass both bodies. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my friend from Tennessee, I would remind my friend from Oregon that the minimum wage in Washington State is, if not the highest, is the second highest in the country. It is $7.63. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

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

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Republican conference Chair, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. Again, there was a conference report, my understanding was agreed by all but it was not signed. The gentleman is correct on that. The underlying bill that we are taking up is that bill that was agreed by all parties on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. That is what this rule provides for. Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we modernize the current pension laws by strengthening the workers' retirement and reducing the prospect of future multi-billion dollar tax bailouts. In recent years, we have seen participants mistakenly believe that their pension plans are well funded only to be surprised when their plan is abruptly terminated. This legislation is intended to end that. The underlying bill encourages workers to increase their personal savings by permanently extending several provisions to enhance pension participation and retirement savings that are set to expire in 2010. Mr. Speaker, without a comprehensive fix to our outdated Federal pension laws, more companies will default on their work and pension plans, and more will stop pension plans for workers entirely. Now is the time for Congress to act on this important legislation. The other measure, Mr. Speaker, that this rule will allow for will continue our ongoing commitment to American workers and taxpayers by providing economic security, enacting permanent estate tax relief, and extending numerous tax provisions that have passed the House in the past with bipartisan support. This bill includes extending the sales tax deductibility, research and development credits and higher education incentives. In 2001, Congress enacted, in a bipartisan fashion, to gradually phase out the death tax and fully eliminate it by 2010. However, if Congress does not extend this relief, in 2011, small business owners and family farmers will once again be assessed the full death tax up to a maximum 2001 rate of 55 percent. The House of Representatives has acted twice in this the 109th Congress to enact a permanent solution to this form of double taxation, but unfortunately, our efforts have been blocked by the other body. Today, the House of Representatives will once again act to help families suffering the loss of a loved one from having to worry about losing the family farm or business in order to pay the Internal Revenue Service. The expectation this time is that the other body will take up the bill and pass the bill. This legislation will provide estate and gift tax relief to America's small business owners and family farmers. Specifically, the bill would increase the exemption amount and index it for inflation, and would lower the amount of taxation on estates. Mr. Speaker, last year, I, along with 271 other Members of Congress, supported a measure that would permanently and fully eliminate the death tax. While permanent elimination of this tax is what I will continue to work with my colleagues on, this measure is a step, in my view, in the right direction. With permanent tax relief from this tax, many farmers and business owners will have a sense of security that they need to plan for the financial future of their business or their farm for their family. Another important provision in the underlying bill is an extension of the State and local sales tax deduction from the Federal income tax. My State of Washington is one of nine States that do not have a State income tax. For nearly 20 years, residents of these States have been unfairly disadvantaged by the IRS code which allows for Federal tax deductions for State income taxes, but not States that have sales tax deductions. In 2004, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and I fought to restore fairness to residents of States without an income tax by restoring the sales and local sales tax deduction. I would like to thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Thomas, for his efforts to include a State and local sales tax extension, which allow every taxpayer that chooses to itemize deductions in the States with no income tax the opportunity to continue deducting sales tax from his or her Federal tax bill. By passing the underlying legislation, we will be restoring fairness for those who live, work, and raise families in those States. This will allow workers in Washington and others to keep more of their own money to spend and invest as they see fit. While continuing to work to fight to make the State and local sales tax deduction permanent, this extension for 2 years will provide billions of dollars of relief to taxpayers in Washington and those other States, and I think it is a step in the right direction. I am also pleased that this legislation creates a new 60 percent deduction for qualified timber capital gains through 2008. In my State of Washington, there are 8\1/2\ million acres of privately owned forests, and the forest products industry is the State's largest manufacturing sector. However, the current Tax Code puts our timber industry at a distinct disadvantage against international competition by subjecting corporate timber and forest product industries to a significantly higher income tax than their overseas competitors. Included in H.R. 5970 is a provision that lowers the timber tax and supports an industry that provides good jobs in many rural communities while strengthening its international competitiveness. Another key provision of this bill extends the research and experimentation tax credit for 2 years. Technological innovation is vital to America's continued economic prosperity and research, and research and development is the lifeblood of innovation. However, research and development activities are expensive, and businesses generally cannot capture all of the returns on their investments. The Federal Government must continue to encourage private businesses to innovate by extending and enhancing tax incentives. The underlying bill does just that. The underlying bill also extends several tax incentives to improve the affordability of higher education, including tax deferred education savings accounts and tax credits for post-secondary education. Specifically, it allows all taxpayers to deduct up to $4,000 of higher education expenses, which will help more students go to college. Mr. Speaker, with about one month left before school starts, teachers will begin preparing and purchasing classroom supplies. Unless Congress acts, an important above-the-line tax deduction that expired this year will not be available to teachers when they go back to school. This bill will help teachers contain the costs of out-of-pocket expenses like books, supplies, and computer equipment while allowing them to deduct $250 from their Federal tax bill. In an effort to encourage savings and stable retirement security, the underlying bill allows lower-income families that contribute to an individual retirement account and pension plans to continue receiving a Federal match in the form of an income tax credit for the first $2,000 of annual contributions. This encourages families to save and plan for their own retirement. There is no question that allowing families to keep more of their hard-earned money spurs economic growth. Earlier this month, revised budget estimates projected that a recent surge in tax revenue will help shrink the Federal deficit more than previously expected. Not acting would raise taxes on millions of workers and families. We must continue the policy to grow our economy and keep our tax bills from rising. The House of Representatives has previously passed these tax provisions on a bipartisan basis, and last December the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act, by a bipartisan vote of 294-132. I would encourage my colleagues to support House Resolution 966 and both underlying bills. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just tell my friend from North Dakota that that was the rule that we worked on. But there are three provisions. It was for the conference report, it was for the minimum wage bill, and it was for another bill. We are taking up the second two of those bills under that rule. In other words, the first portion that was provided in the rule, while it is provided, is not applicable to what we are taking up tonight.