Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 925 is a closed rule providing for 2 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It also provides that pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion. Lastly, the resolution provides that during consideration of the bill, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker in consonance with section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 925 provides for the consideration of H.R. 5684, a bill to implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement, in accordance with trade measures negotiated under the Trade Promotion Authority. Under these procedures, once the administration formally submits the final legislative language to Congress, it may not be amended. Former United States Trade Rep Rob Portman signed the United States- Oman Free Trade Agreement on January 19, 2006. Under the agreement, all consumer and industrial goods traded between the U.S. and Oman will immediately be duty free, and 87 percent of the U.S. agriculture tariff lines will gain immediate duty-free access with the remaining tariffs phased out over a 10-year period. It provides wide access and sets a strong precedent for opening up opportunities for services for U.S. firms, contains robust protections for U.S. intellectual property rights holders, and includes strong labor and environmental provisions. Oman enacted broad labor reforms in 2003, Mr. Speaker, and has followed up with specific commitments to ensure that its laws provide strong protections for workers consistent with international standards. Oman enacted many of these reforms earlier this month and has pledged to enact the remaining reforms by this November. This agreement makes it clear that it is inappropriate for Oman to weaken or reduce domestic labor protections or environmental laws to encourage trade or investment and that this obligation is enforceable through specific dispute settlement procedures. Mr. Speaker, the United States makes up only 4 percent of the world's population. Therefore, we must recognize that we have an opportunity to create and expand the marketplace for U.S. goods and services by reaching fair trade agreements with our international trading partners. This agreement will contribute to economic growth and trade between the U.S. and Oman; generate export opportunities for U.S. companies, farmers, and ranchers; help create jobs in both countries; and help American consumers save money while offering them greater choices. My home State of Washington, for example, is one of the most trade- dependent States in the Nation, and our economy depends on fair trade. From agriculture to high tech to manufacturing industries, Washington State and our Nation are in a position to benefit by having more trading partners. One area where trade with Oman shows great promise for America is in the area of commercial aircraft. Oman Air recently purchased Boeing 737 airplanes valued at $200 million at catalog prices. We want to continue to encourage these kinds of sales to Oman and in the broader Middle East, which, of course, creates new jobs here at home. In addition to the new commercial opportunities it provides, this agreement will support many of the recent government, legal, and economic reforms in Oman, which are important to bringing stability to the Middle East region. In 2003 President Bush proposed completion of a Middle East Free Trade Area by 2013 as part of a plan to fight terrorism by supporting Middle East economic growth and democracy through trade. The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act would be the fifth bilateral trade agreement reached between the United States and a Middle Eastern country. It is yet another step in the right direction toward integrating fair trade policies and economic reforms to support a more stable and prosperous Middle East. This agreement will send a strong signal to countries in that region about the benefits of closer economic and political ties to the United States. The Committee on Ways and Means favorably reported H.R. 5684 last May. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 925 and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), 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. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 925 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of July 24 to grant a rule which would limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1956, the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2006. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by noon on Monday, July 24, 2006. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, which was filed with the House on Monday, July 17, 2006. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to ensure that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

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, today, I am introducing legislation that will enable the continued stocking of fish in certain alpine lakes in the North Cascades National Park Complex, which includes the North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. For many decades, volunteer groups--working with the State of Washington have stocked trout in a number of lakes in this area. This provides enhanced recreation and tourism opportunities in the North Cascades. As you may know, the National Park Service as a general policy is moving away from artificially stocking fish. In this case, however, a 12-year university review indicates that the fish stocking program can be carried out in such a way as to not adversely affect the environment. In order to protect this longstanding practice in the North Cascades, I am introducing legislation today that affirms that fish stocking can continue under certain conditions. While I believe the National Park Service already has the authority to do this under the act that established the park in 1968, the agency requires further clarification from Congress in order to proceed with a proposed management plan revision that would allow this practice to continue under the auspices of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. I am pleased to be joined today upon introduction of this bill by Rick Larsen, Norm Dicks, and Cathy McMorris. I look forward to working with my colleagues from Washington to make sure that our constituents can continue to enjoy the recreation opportunities created by fish stocking in the North Cascades.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, let me just review. This issue has been around in Congress for some time. This House has acted on full repeal of the death tax for the last three Congresses on a bipartisan basis. But the reality is we simply can't get this through the full Congress because the other body simply doesn't have the votes, supermajority votes, I might add, to close off debate over there, so we have to pass something that can pass both Houses of the Congress. This bill does that. And it is important that we pass this bill as soon as we possibly can so those that are trying to plan estates after 2010 can make those plans with some certainty. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. This is a good rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from New York how many speakers she has, because I at this time have no more requests.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

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 am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthwhile just to put a little bit of the historical context on this issue because it has been around for some time. In the 106th Congress, for example, in the year 2000, the House passed a bill to phase out the death tax in 10 years and permanently repeal it. When it passed the House, it got 279 votes, obviously bipartisan. Sixty-five Democrats voted for it. In the other body, in the Senate, it passed the Senate with 59 votes, obviously on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed by the President in the 106th Congress. So, in the 107th Congress, in 2001, once again, the House passed the bill to permanently repeal the tax, phase it out over 10 years, and that bill garnered 274 votes, again a bipartisan vote out of the House. Unfortunately, in the Senate, we were unable to get a full repeal and, instead, the death tax was phased out over 10 years, but would revert in 2011 to the 2001 rate. The expectation, of course, was that the Congress would deal with that before 2011 and fully repeal it. In the 108th Congress, once again the House passed a bill to fully repeal the death tax, 264 votes out of the House, again on a bipartisan basis; and in the 109th Congress, this Congress, once again the House passed a full repeal, 272 votes, again on a bipartisan basis, with Democrats joining Republicans to repeal it. The unfortunate thing is this leads us to where we are right now, and that is that the cloture motion failed in the Senate. It takes 60 votes in order to cut off debate in the Senate; and, unfortunately, the Senate only received 57 votes. So, therefore, that issue won't be taken up. This is an effort, then, to try to get to a position where we can pass this bill out of the House and in fact pass it out of the Senate so that we can have some certainty as far as estate planning. So this issue has been around for some time. It has always enjoyed bipartisan support. This rule simply provides for us to continue what we have been doing in the last four Congresses, and that is to pass and address this issue in a bipartisan manner. This issue has been around, I think it is timely, in fact, it is time for us to act on this. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 885 is a closed rule providing 1 hour of general debate in the House on H.R. 5638, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, in 2001, Congress acted in a bipartisan fashion to gradually phase out the death tax and eliminate it by 2010. However, if Congress does not act to extend this relief, in 2011 small business owners and family farmers will once again be assessed the full death tax up to the maximum 2001 rate of 55 percent. The death tax is a form of double taxation, and frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is simply unfair. The last thing families in central Washington and across the Nation should have to worry about when a loved one dies is losing a family farm or business in order to pay the Internal Revenue Service. But sadly, that is the situation many hard-working families could face if a permanent and workable solution is not agreed to. H.R. 5638, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act, would provide estate and gift tax relief to America's small business owners and family farmers. Specifically, the bill would increase the exemption from $1 million to $5 million per person, indexed for inflation, and it would lower the amount of taxation on estates. The bill would also provide tax relief for gifts given during a person's life. Currently, gifts given when a person is alive are taxed more than gifts given through a will or death. By reunifying estate, gift and generation-skipping transfer taxes, we give individuals greater flexibility to give gifts during their life rather than at death. 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 8.5 million acres of privately owned forests, and the forest parks industry is the State's second 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 the underlying bill 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. Mr. Speaker, last year I, along with 271 other Members of the House, 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 both sides to accomplish, this relief measure is a step in the right direction. The Rules Committee reported House Resolution 885 by a voice vote last night. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 885 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of June 26 to grant a rule which would limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 4973, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2006. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 12 noon on Monday, June 26, 2006. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Financial Services. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding time, and I rise in support of this rule and the underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a global war that we did not seek but that was brought to our shores by actions of terrorists on September 11, 2001. The global war on terror is unlike other past wars. In the past the United States fought a clear enemy state. Today we fight an enemy without borders that threatens our free way of life. When George Washington was elected as our first President, there was a king in France, a czarina in Russia, an emperor in China, and a shogun in Japan. The American President was the only elected leader at that time. Today, countries in every continent elect their own leaders. The number of democracies currently stands at an all-time high and has been growing without interruption for some time. Freedom and self- government is on the march around the world. Mr. Speaker, why is this important? It is important, Mr. Speaker, because history has shown that those countries who elect their leaders are less belligerent than those who do not. Democracy and freedom are a threat to the terrorist ideology, which is why they fight so hard to keep self-government from taking hold. The Middle East is an area where democracy has faced significant challenge. It is a region where we have seen entrenched dictatorships, continued violence, and civil unrest. In an article from the Washington Times on June 12, Mark Stein cites four separate and recent incidents that took place in Baghdad, London, Toronto and Mogadishu. He goes on to say, and I quote, ``The world divides those who think the above are all part of the same story and those who figure they are strictly local items of no wider significance.'' I believe that these events are all rooted in the same ideology, and the United States, as the leader of the free world, stands in the way of this ideology. We must not forget the sacrifice our military is making for the security and support of our ideals. They are fighting the enemy abroad so we will not have to fight them here. We must continue to support our troops and stay focused on defeating terrorism in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 868 and the underlying resolution declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, which is essential to the security of the American people. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a global war that we did not seek, but that was brought to our shores by the actions of terrorists on September 11, 2001. The Global War on Terror is unlike all other wars. In past wars the United States fought a clear enemy state--today, we fight an enemy without borders that threatens our free way of life. When George Washington was elected the first President there was a king in France, a czarina in Russia, an emperor in China, and a shogun in Japan. The American President was the only elected leader at the time. Today, countries on every continent elect their own leaders. The number of democracies currently stands at an all-time high, and has been growing without interruption for some time. Freedom and self- government is on the march around the world. History has shown that those countries who elect their leaders are less belligerent than those that do not. Democracy and freedom are a threat to the terrorists' ideology, which is why they fight so hard to keep self-government from taking hold. The Middle East is an area where democracy has faced significant challenges--it is a region where we see entrenched dictatorships, continued violence and civil unrest. In an article from the Washington Times on June 12, Mark Steyn cites four separate and recent incidents that took place in Baghdad, London, Toronto and Mogadishu. He goes on to say, ``The world divides into those who think the above are all part of the same story and those who figure they're strictly local items of no wider significance . . .'' I believe these events are all rooted in the same ideology. The United States as the leader of the free world stands in the way of this ideology. Mr. Speaker, this Global War on Terror is protecting the freedoms that terrorists seek to destroy by any means necessary. Throughout this war, the terrorists have been emboldened by weakness, but fortunately it is the brave actions of our military men and women who are proving to our enemy that America will persevere. We must not forget the sacrifice our military is making for our security and in support of our ideals. They are fighting the enemy abroad, so that we will not have to fight them here. I am proud of the soldiers from my area in Central Washington who have stepped forward to defend our nation's security. In addition to contributing to the Global War on Terror in manpower--my district is home to the Yakima Training Center--where the soldiers of the Stryker Brigade train in settings designed to simulate real battlefield conditions in the War on Terror. They are helping to transform our military into a force that can meet the readiness demands of this new conflict. As our troops employ the latest techniques to combat terrorism in this modern war--they clearly demonstrate the dedication and honor of military men and women before them. This has been apparent the two times I have traveled to Iraq, and when I visit with troops returning from the front. Mr. Speaker, the Global War on Terror is not a war we sought, but it is one we must continue to fight and is vital we win. We face a clear choice today. Do we back down in the face of a determined enemy for a temporary reprieve, or do we stand firm and fight the terrorists abroad? I believe the answer is obvious. We must stand firm on the Global War on Terror. While more work remains--thanks to our troops, America is safer. Saddam Hussein is being brought to justice and Iraq is being stabilized so that it is not a haven for future terrorist activities. We must continue to support our troops and stay focused on defeating terrorism in Iraq and around the world in order to keep American families and communities safe at home. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying resolution that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 418) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the resolution. This is a fair rule. It is an open rule and allows Members to come down to the floor and prioritize and reprioritize the spending under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I, first of all, want to thank the ranking member for his kind words, and I also want to thank him and the chairman of the subcommittee a little broader because they have taken a great deal of interest in the Hanford project. Both of them have been out there at least once in the past several years, and other Members of the subcommittee have visited that, and I want to bring that to the House's attention because the one common denominator I hear when people go out and visit the Hanford site is, I had no idea it was that huge and that complex. I think that understanding helps us move forward. But I do want to reiterate and I do hope the Department of Energy does come forward with their path before we finally get the final conference report. I think that it is important. Having said that, on the Rules Committee, we did not make the gentleman's amendment in order because it calls for raising taxes, and that is a province of the Ways and Means Committee, and obviously, they do want to keep that jurisdiction. We did not provide the waiver, and therefore, that amendment was not made in order. I also mention, too, the amendment was offered during the markup in the full Appropriations Committee, and it was defeated by the Appropriations Committee. So I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, but I just wanted to make those observations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.