Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 966 is a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5970. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 5970 in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. It also waives all points of order against the consideration of H.R. 5970 and provides one motion to recommit H.R. 5970. House Resolution 966 also provides for the consideration of H.R. 4 under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4 in the House equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 4, and provides one motion to recommit. This rule allows for consideration, Mr. Speaker, of two very important measures. The first deals with protecting the pensions of American workers. Mr. Speaker, the recent financial troubles and pension terminations of several large companies underscore the need for fundamental pension reform. The underlying bill is an agreement struck between the House and the Senate conferees on H.R. 2830, the Pension Security and Transparency Act. The underlying bill will ensure that millions of hard-working Americans who rely on single and multi-employer pension benefits can continue to count on them. I would like to congratulate the majority leader, Mr. Boehner for his tireless efforts in bringing this conference report before the House today. Mr. Boehner has worked on legislation to better protect the pension of workers for over 5 years now, and I commend him for his hard work on this issue. It is vital, Mr. Speaker, that we modernize current pension laws by strengthening worker's retirement security and reduce----

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 966 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of time. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for consideration of two very important bills, bills that have been worked on extremely hard on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the rotunda. One of them is the pension reform bill that has been worked on by the respective committees for 5 or 6 years on a bipartisan basis. The bill that we will take up later on pension reform is the conference report. But because of the timing and some logistics, this is the best way to address this issue is to take the bill up and pass it so that the Senate can act on it next week. The other bill is a minimum-wage increase bill. I don't know how many times this body, in the last several months, has had procedural motions regarding the minimum wage. So we are going to have a minimum-wage bill before us later on tonight. And with that bill, with the expectation that the other body will talk about it and will pass it favorably, will be something that this body has addressed several times. The estate tax, or the death tax, has been addressed by this Congress on two occasions. The first occasion was to totally eliminate it. And it passed this body on a bipartisan basis. The second time was a cap that we will take up, very similar to what we will take up later on. It also passed on a bipartisan basis. So the issues that we are taking up and allowing to take up with this rule aren't new to this body. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this same-day rule and to vote, later on, for the rule that will allow consideration of these two measures that I just talked about. They are important to our constituents; and the sooner we do it, the better off we will be. And I must say too, Mr. Speaker, the expectation is that both of these measures that we will take up later on tonight will be passed by the other body next week and they will become law. And amongst that is the minimum-wage increase that my friends on the other side of the aisle have been talking about. 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, I have no more speakers, if the gentleman is prepared to close.

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. Well, reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman told me that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I feel a great deal of respect for my friend that just spoke, and I want to go on record as saying that I am one of those that is not in favor of raising the minimum wage. I have never voted for that. And my State, by the way, has, if not the highest, one of the highest minimum wages in the country. But I am going to vote for this bill. And I am going to vote for this bill not because I embrace the minimum wage, I am going to vote for this bill because it has the estate tax provision in there. I am going to vote for this bill because it has the sales tax deduction for Washington State and other States that don't have sales tax deductibility. And my expectation is, my expectation is that the other body will vote accordingly and pass the bill, therefore, we will have the minimum wage increase that my friend from Massachusetts talked about. It seems to me it is the best of all worlds in the give and take of the legislative process as we near a recess.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, in the bill that we will be considering later on that has the minimum wage provisions as my friend from Texas was talking about, it also has some very important tax, what we call tax extenders bills, that would otherwise expire. One of those extenders is something I know is very important to the citizens of Texas in that it allows sales tax deductibility for those States that do not have a State income tax. The Speaker pro tempore is one of those, my State is one of those, and my friend from Texas also has that. So I would hope that while we have the minimum wage in the same bill as the sales tax, it seems to me to be a pretty attractive package. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 958 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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 back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, if the issue is on port security, then I would like to remind my colleagues of what I had said earlier, that in these trade agreements there are articles that speak to essential security, and these articles are self-judging, which means it is up to the individual country to make the determination as to what their security interests are. There is nothing in this agreement that can prevent us from applying what we consider to be security issues. But don't take my word for it. The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan organization, said, in addressing this issue and having an international tribunal judge this, that national security issues have never been subjected to review by trade panels. That is a very important distinction. Further, the Congressional Research Service goes on to say: ``The U.S. should appear to be on solid legal grounds for asserting not only that the panel does not, the independent panel, does not have legal authority to determine the validity of such a matter, but also that the inconsistent measure is permitted and justified, given the broad self- judging language in the national security exemption.'' So clearly the argument that the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement will make our Nation less secure, in fact, has no basis in fact. There is no question, however, Mr. Speaker, that fair trade promotes economic development and political cooperation. In fact, the 9/11 Commission specifically cited Middle Eastern free trade agreements and calls for action on a comprehensive U.S. strategy that President Bush has, I might add, engaged in that includes economic policies encouraging development, more open societies and opportunities for people to improve their lives. Mr. Speaker, approving this agreement is a vital step towards our efforts against the war on Islamofascism and seeks to make our Nation more, not less, secure.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, who is probably one of the individuals in this body that works on trade issues more than anybody else.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will respond to a couple of points that my friend from California made. Regarding the labor language in this trade agreement, it is essentially the same language that was in the Bahrain trade agreement that, of course, is in the same part geographically in the world as Oman. I would just remind my colleagues that that language and that trade agreement were acceptable to my friend from California. She voted in favor of the Bahrain trade agreement, as did the gentleman from Maryland, whom she referenced. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to respond to the concerns that this agreement poses national security issues and concerns that a third- party tribunal would have ultimate say over our security issues. The U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement, like previous trade agreements, treats Omani landside service providers and investors no less favorably than our own landside service suppliers. These landside activities include unloading vessels, marine cargo handling, and ship cleaning. When an entity participates in these landside aspects of port activities, it does not control, manage or operate a U.S. port. That always remains the responsibility of the port authority. Nothing in this agreement, Mr. Speaker, before us today prohibits the U.S. from reviewing foreign investment transactions in order to ensure our national security. More importantly, it expressly permits the U.S. to block a potential port acquisition by claiming national security interests. As you see, Mr. Speaker, all of our trade agreements, including this one, contain an article called ``essential security,'' which is self- judging, meaning that it is up to an individual country to determine whether a particular matter is necessary for the protection of its essential security interests. All the commitments that we undertake in trade agreements are subject to this provision. Under this article, nothing in an agreement can prevent us from applying measures that we consider necessary for the protection of our essential security interests. Therefore, the ultimate decision on what is necessary to protect our essential services rests with the United States, not a third-party tribunal. Finally, Mr. Speaker, history and precedent also indicate that no third-party dispute panel or tribunal has ever heard any arguments, much less issued a decision, related to the scope and application of any national security exception contained in a national trade or investment agreement. So those issues, while they may be nice to talk about, really have no bearing on the trade agreements that we have had in the past. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.