Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

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

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. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 202 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a valuable member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 202 is a structured rule providing for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 8, a bill to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides for consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered, by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8, a bill introduced by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), permanently repeals the death tax. I commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) for championing an end to the death tax, as my former friend and colleague, Jennifer Dunn, did while serving in Congress. Through Jennifer's tireless efforts, in 2001 Congress acted in a bipartisan fashion to gradually phase out the death tax and fully eliminate it in 2010. However, if Congress does not extend the death tax repeal beyond 2010, in 2011 small business owners and family farmers will once again be assessed the full death tax at the maximum 2001 rate. The death tax is a form of double taxation and 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 the family farm or business in order to pay the Internal Revenue Service. But, sadly, that is the situation many hard-working families would face if the death tax is not permanently abolished. With permanent elimination of this tax, farmers and business owners will have the sense of security they need to plan for the financial future of their businesses, farms, or families. Death taxes are an unfair assault on every American's potential life savings. Today, we have the opportunity to bury the death tax for good. The Committee on Rules reported House Resolution 202 by a voice vote. Accordingly, I encourage 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, 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, this is not the first time that this body has addressed the issue of repealing or making permanent the death tax. In the 106th Congress, on a bipartisan basis, with 279 votes in favor, this body voted in favor of permanently eliminating the death tax. And the other body, also on a bipartisan basis, they, too, voted to permanently eliminate the death tax, but President Clinton vetoed that bill. In the 107th Congress, again on a bipartisan basis, the House voted to eliminate the death tax permanently. Unfortunately, in the reconciliation of trying to put the differences between the two Houses together, we put the date of the 2011 when that would expire. In the last Congress, once again the House addressed this issue and voted to permanently eliminate this death tax. The bill that we will address when we pass this rule is exactly the same as the bill that we passed on a bipartisan basis in the last Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet next week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 54, the Congressional Gold Medal Enhancement Act of 2005. The bill was introduced on January 4, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Financial Services. 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 Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 1 p.m. on Tuesday, January 25. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as introduced on January 4. Members are advised that the text of the bill as introduced is available for their review on the Web sites of the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Rules. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to 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, on January 4, 1965, Battelle was selected by the federal government to manage and operate what was then called the Hanford Laboratories, and is now called the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. I congratulate PNNL as it celebrates its 40th anniversary. PNNL is a unique asset to my congressional district, to Washington State, to the Pacific Northwest and to the entire nation. In 1965, Battelle committed to create a robust research operation in the State of Washington. It has absolutely delivered on its commitment. In the last 40 years, the number of staff at the lab has tripled, and business has increased from $20 million in 1965 to more than $600 million in 2004. As a leader in innovation, PNNL is an enduring asset in the Tri-Cities with many spinoff companies and technologies. As such, the laboratory continues to build collaborations with the region's colleges and universities and other scientific enterprises. With major contributions to national science and technology programs, especially in recent years on homeland and national security, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is a valuable national asset and a vital part of regional efforts to create better jobs and strengthen our economy. Since 1965, Battelle has contributed more than $13 million to not- for-profit organizations in the region. Battelle has also invested more than $125 million in facilities and equipment at its campus in Richland. And as testimony to its excellent stewardship of the lab, PNNL continues to receive ``Outstanding'' ratings for management of the lab by the Department of Energy. It recently received its seventh consecutive Outstanding rating. As we look back on this exceptional record, we can also look forward with anticipation to Battelle's continued leadership at PNNL. With the world class staff and resources at the lab, and Battelle's excellent management, there is no limit to what can be done. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by sharing the strong feelings that all of us have in the Tri-Cities and the State of Washington-- Battelle is a great employer, a great corporate citizen, and we look forward to many more years of its presence and commitment to a better Washington, a prosperous Pacific Northwest, and a safer world.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation to remove the Agricultural Adjustment Act requirement that processors be members of an agency administering a marketing order on pears. I want to thank my friend and colleague from Oregon, Mr. Walden, for his hard work on behalf of the NW pear industry. My Congressional district produces 44 percent of the nation's pears, and Washington State is the top pear producing state in the nation. The pear growers I represent and their fellow pear growers throughout the Pacific Northwest are working hard to meet the challenges of foreign competition and changing consumer tastes, and industry marketing organizations are a vital part of this effort. However, Northwest pear growers are operating under an unnecessarily complicated arrangement involving two federal marketing orders and two state commodity commissions. The industry would like to streamline its grade standards and marketing efforts by moving to a single federal marketing order. Moving from four organizations doing the same job to one seems like common sense to me, but there is a problem. Current federal statute requires that any marketing order that covers pears for processing must have equal representation from producers and processors on its governing board. Keep in mind that it is producers, not processors, that pay the assessments and are subject to the marketing orders' quality standards. For this reason a requirement that processors have equal representation is unreasonable and is a barrier to the industry's plan to consolidate its organizations. This legislation will simply remove the requirement that the number of producer and processor representatives be equal. If passed, our bill would allow the Northwest pear industry to establish a single federal marketing order that does not give disproportionate influence to one segment of the industry. This legislation is supported by the Pacific Northwest pear industry, and the processors themselves do not oppose the removal of this provision. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation to clarify the authority of state commissions to collect commodity assessments on the proceeds of marketing assistance loans. Agriculture is the prime driver of the economy in my Central Washington congressional district. Many growers in my district make use of marketing loans that allow them to use their crop as collateral. Many growers also participate in check-off programs for collecting an assessment on a certain crop. These assessments are normally collected at the first point of sale. The USDA and the Commodity Credit Corporation have supported state commissions in the collection of grower-funded commodity assessments when, because of low commodity prices, the commodity is forfeited to the government. The state assessments have been collected under a Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA and state commodity commissions. Recently, wheat growers in Washington and California voted to increase their support of commodity activities through an assessment increase. USDA has claimed that it lacks the statutory authority to honor a Memorandum of Understanding if the assessment rate is changed. This decision has the potential to cause serious impact to state commissions and disadvantage to growers that depend on their work. The use of funds is very important during times of low prices and oversupply, when the need for expanding markets increases. This legislation introduced by my friend and colleague from Washington, Mr. Nethercutt and myself will authorize the USDA to continue to collect state commodity assessments in the event of forfeiture of a commodity to the federal government. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the sponsor of this measure.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 803 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides that the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3193 is a bipartisan measure sponsored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). The bill has 228 cosponsors from across the country, including 44 Democrats. The bill simply permits law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia to own firearms, a right currently denied them by act of the D.C. City Council. The Nation's capital has the toughest laws and regulations in the country prohibiting gun ownership by citizens. This bill would repeal the most onerous of those laws, thereby permitting individuals to protect themselves and their families in their own homes and otherwise enjoy privileges of gun ownership comparable to those enjoyed by most American citizens. This bill would not affect any laws currently aimed at criminals and would place strict penalties on criminals who use guns to commit crimes. In addition, all penalties are doubled for illegal possession of a firearm in a ``gun-free zone'' within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, college, or various youth facilities such as swimming pools and video arcades. Possession or use of a firearm while committing a crime of violence would remain punishable by up to 30 years in prison with a minimum 5 years served before eligibility for parole or probation. Mr. Speaker, some have suggested that passage of H.R. 3193 may lead to an increase in violent crime, but I have to say that the facts suggest otherwise. Before the D.C. City Council imposed a handgun and home-defense ban in 1976, D.C.'s homicide rate had been declining. After the ban was instituted, however, D.C.'s homicide rate rose by more than 200 percent by 1991, while during the same period, the national homicide rate rose by just 12 percent. It is clear that this misguided and overly restrictive gun ban has not only failed to decrease violent crime in the District of Columbia, but it may have contributed to its increase. We have a chance today to do something about that. So accordingly, Mr. Speaker, 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 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. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 803 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, as the author of the House version of the ``Manhattan Project National Historical Study Act'' I rise today to offer my support for this legislation. Senator Cantwell and I have worked together across party lines to develop this proposal because it's important to the people of Central Washington. And, because it presents a unique opportunity to share a piece of our Nation's history. I am pleased that our plan has been brought up for consideration today and I encourage my colleagues to support it. By providing for a study of our nation's Manhattan Project Sites, we take an important first step towards the goal of making Hanford's B Reactor into a museum. This is the first step in preserving the historic B Reactor for generations to come. In 1943, only months after Enrico Fermi first demonstrated that controlled nuclear reaction was possible, ground was broken on the B Reactor--which went on to become the first full-scale plutonium production reactor. An integral part of the Manhattan Project, B Reactor produced the plutonium for the bomb dropped on Nagasaki that helped win World War II. From a scientific standpoint, the B Reactor is a testament to American ingenuity and innovation. From a historical standpoint it represents a part of Central Washington's past and our Nation's past that should not be forgotten. For those who didn't live through World War II--the B Reactor helps tell the story of a workforce that contributed to our Nation's defense for so many years. Walking through the B Reactor is like catching a glimpse into the 1940's. Because it has been left largely intact, the tour gives you a very real sense of what it might have been like to work at the B Reactor. The B Reactor Museum Association and the local community are driving forces behind this project. I share their enthusiasm for preservation of the B Reactor and I believe this proposal is a great step towards making this project a reality. It is especially appropriate that the House consider this proposal today because the local community will be celebrating B Reactor's 60th Anniversary on October 9th. I can think of no better way to commemorate this anniversary and honor those who worked at B Reactor than approving this bill and sending it to the President's desk. As an author of this bipartisan plan, I encourage my colleagues to support the ``Manhattan Project National Historical Study Act'' so that we can begin studying how best to share the story of the B Reactor, and the Nation's other Manhattan Project Sites with future generations.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to create the Ice Age Floods National Geological Trail. At the end of the Ice Age, 12,000-17,000 years ago, a series of cataclysmic floods occurred in what is now the northwest region of the United States. These floods left dramatic and distinguishing features on the landscape throughout Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. In 2001, a joint study team headed by the National Park Service, that included 70 members from public and private entities, completed a study endorsing the establishment of the Ice Age Floods National Geological Trail to recognize the national significance of this phenomenon and to coordinate public and private sector entities in the presentation of the story of the Ice Age Floods. The Ice Age Floods National Geological Trail would reveal, to the public, a fascinating story that spans across the Pacific Northwest. Regional, national, and international travelers would have the opportunity to discover how immensely powerful cataclysmic floods had a profound effect in shaping distinctive landscapes and in defining ways of life, from the flanks of the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. The Trail can be expected to generate significant economic benefit, through increased tourism, in a vast and largely rural region. I ask you to refer this legislation to the appropriate committee for consideration.