Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a senior member of the Committee on the Budget and a leader in the budget reform process in the House.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 692 is a structured rule providing 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. The rule further provides that the amendments printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, except that upon adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, only the last amendment printed in the report shall be in order. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, as the only Member of the House serving on both the Committee on Rules and the Committee on the Budget, I have become increasingly convinced of the need for significant changes in the congressional budget process, particularly with respect to the spending side of the budget ledger. Enactment of H.R. 4663 would make major strides toward providing the House with the tools needed to enforce spending discipline in a time of unacceptable high Federal deficits. Like many Members, I wish the bill reported went even further, but it is an important first step. For that reason, I am pleased that the Committee on Rules has made in order a long list of proposed amendments to provide the House with multiple opportunities to strengthen the base bill. At the heart of the bill are proposals to reinstate spending caps on discretionary spending, consistent with the levels set forth in the budget resolution, and a 2-year extension of the pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, requirements for mandatory spending. It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that this latter provision requires that bills increasing entitlement spending must be offset by reductions in other spending and not by raising taxes. The bill also provides that any breach of either of these spending disciplines would result in automatic spending cuts known as ``sequesters.'' Finally, the bill takes the responsible approach to the sometimes legitimate need for ``emergency'' spending by permitting such measures only when they result from circumstances that are truly unanticipated, temporary, and are needed for the preservation of life, property, or national security. The bill also requires that future spending projections no longer assume that these one-time ``emergency'' spending levels will continue in future years. Mr. Speaker, the congressional budget process was a badly needed reform back in 1974; and while it served us well in that time period, it can serve us better. This bill is an important step towards that goal; and, accordingly, I encourage Members 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 692 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me time to speak on this rule and about the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to celebrate an enormously important change in the Federal income Tax Code that is a key part of the American Jobs Creation Act, a return to fairness for the residents of States that have no State income tax. The Federal 1986 Tax Reform Act eliminated the State sales tax deduction from the Federal income Tax Code, but maintained the State income tax deduction from one's Federal income tax responsibilities. Washington is a non-income tax State. Americans who live, work, and raise their families in Washington, in my view, have been treated unfairly since 1986. And Washington State is not alone. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming all do not have statewide income taxes. Clearly these States are a minority in this House and, indeed, in this Congress. There are not just party majorities and minorities in Congress, there are similar divisions on policies and issues, and this is one of them. When it comes to trying to fix the Federal Tax Code's discrimination against non-income tax States, the congressional delegations from the affected States had and have been a distinct minority in this body. Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues and I from the affected States will have the first opportunity to correct this longstanding injustice by voting to pass the American Jobs Creation Act. It has taken hard work on both sides of the aisle to get this change made. The Washington State delegation has worked on this issue for years. Republicans and Democrats have pitched in where they are able and tried to get this job done. But probably the best illustration of just how difficult a challenge it has been to correct this injustice is to look back on who served as the most powerful member of this body after the 1986 tax reform. That tax reform became law in October of 1986. In January of 1987 the Democrat majority in the House at that time elected a Speaker of the House from the State of Texas. When this Texas Speaker's tenure ended, the Democratic majority elected a Speaker of the House from Washington State. For four Congresses, this House was run by a Speaker from one of the nine non-income tax States. Yet even with this powerful office, the States' tax codes and fairness did not get corrected by a vote in this House. Mr. Speaker, this just demonstrates how long and hard a road these congressional delegations from these sales tax States have been traveling. Today we can and will make a big change for the better for our States. This bill is a tremendous victory in my view. Comments have been made that the State sales tax portion of this bill is not perfect, and it does not return the Federal Tax Codes to its pre-1986 reform wording and that the State sales tax deduction will eventually sunset. I will only say after working so long, after struggling such long odds for nearly 20 years when our States have had no deduction, I say let us grab the victory; seize the one bird in our hand as tight as we can, especially when we have not seen two birds in a bush for nearly 2 decades. This bill will provide billions of dollars of relief to tax payers in Washington and the other States in this tax year and for the next year. Let us get this enacted into law. It will be working to include a change in the future that will make this permanent, obviously. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and especially urge all of my colleagues from non-income tax States to support the American Jobs Creation Act.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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, 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 674 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 674 is an open rule waiving all points of order against consideration of H.R. 4568, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2005. The rule provides for one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution provides, per the rules of the House, that the bill shall be read for amendments by paragraph. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, are waived except as specified in the resolution. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority recognition to Members who have preprinted amendments in the Congressional Record. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4568, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2005, sets clear priorities in a year of tight budgets. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies faced a difficult challenge and has written a solid bill that focuses on meeting the Federal Government's core responsibilities in the agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. Priority was given to essential functions and duties of these agencies, rather than on launching new initiatives and expanding government's reach. One of the highest priorities must be preventing wildfires on our national lands. This bill provides $2.6 billion for wildland firefighting in the National Fire Plan. This is a significant increase over fiscal year 2004, and it is a much-needed increase. Wildfires have a dramatic impact on our public lands, on private property and, even tragically, on human life. We must maintain the commitment to working to prevent such blazes and combating them aggressively when they do strike. Another priority must be providing for our existing parks and public lands. This bill increases funding for our national parks, a total of $1.7 billion. For example, the bill includes $471 million to address the backlog in maintenance at our national parks and places restrictions on travel expenses for Park Service officials, a common- sense policy during a time when our parks have serious maintenance needs. Addressing these maintenance needs is something that I have long supported. The bill also includes increased funding over the fiscal year 2004 level for the Indian Health Service, the National Forest System, BIA Education and Operations of Indian Programs and the U.S. Geological Survey. Funding is limited for Federal land acquisition, a decision on priorities that I strongly support. In a year of fiscal constraints, it certainly is appropriate to focus first on maintaining the Federal Government's existing lands. Land acquisition is not a necessity. Indeed, it costs local governments through decreased tax revenue and has real impact on local governments' abilities to provide essential services. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for his leadership in writing H.R. 4568, especially in this challenging year. The gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) has guided this bill in a reasonable and responsible manner, which is especially appreciated in all areas of the West like the district I represent that are heavily impacted by the work of Federal agencies under his jurisdiction. I also want to recognize the role that I know the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, my colleague from Washington State (Mr. Dicks), played in the preparation of this bill. I value highly our ability to work together on matters of importance to Washington State, and this is a good example of that. I know my colleague's dedication to solving challenges and bettering our Nation are traits he brings to all of his responsibilities here in the House. So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this open rule, H. Res. 674, and the underlying Interior Appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise today to pay tribute to two constituents who are not only leaders in the State of Washington but are dedicated humanitarians that have positively impacted lives around the world. The husband and wife team of Dr. Lewis Zirkle and Dr. Sarah Zirkle was recently named Tri-Citians of the Year for devoting over 30 years to helping those less fortunate--both here at home and abroad. This award is presented once each year to an outstanding citizen of the TriCities area in Washington state. Dr. Lewis Zirkle is an orthopedic specialist who served as an Army surgeon in the Vietnam War. After the war, he made numerous return trips to Vietnam and other developing nations to help local health care providers establish more effective surgical techniques for treating fractures. In 1999, Dr. Zirkle founded the Surgical Implant Generation Network (SIGN) to help provide a system of training, hardware and follow-up assistance to orthopedic surgeons in developing countries. In just 5 years, SIGN has developed over 42 projects that are operating around the world, which are supplied with surgical hardware from a state-of- the-art manufacturing facility. Dr. Sara Zirkle also has a long list of accomplishments. As a developmental and behavioral pediatric specialist, she has been a strong advocate on behalf of children. She helped found the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic at Kadlec Medical Center in Richland, Washington and the Mid-Columbia Reading Foundation. She has received numerous awards and recognition for her work with abused children. The Zirkles exemplify the best of America. I am proud to have them as constituents in the Fourth District of Washington state and I know they will continue to devote their time to helping others.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the revelations that came to light last week regarding the tapes on the Enron traders. As I started to say earlier, that is pretty black and white, and it is bad. There is absolutely no question about that. And FERC is responsible for that. FERC has been working on this for some time. They have been. I think, frankly, they have been moving rather slowly. But now that this new information is out, I think FERC has to move much more quickly on this issue because there is an awful lot at stake for the rate payers in the western part of my State and certainly in my State and, indeed, the whole northwest. So I share concerns with my colleagues on the west coast that FERC needs to act immediately, and I hope that they would. I might also add that since these revelations came to light last week about the trading, the Department of Justice has now weighed in, as they properly should. So we will get to the bottom about this. I do not think there is any question about that. But there is no way that anybody in this body can condone what we heard that was made public with those tapes. So with that, getting back to the business at hand, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills. 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 have no further requests for time, and 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend from Washington that I am outraged as he is and other speakers have been by the revelation of the traders at Enron. No question about that. It is in black and white.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think probably the right thing to do is just review back to how we got to this point. Let us remind ourselves we have not had an energy policy in this country for several decades, and we need to have an energy policy. This House has passed three energy bills, and the other body has not acted on those three energy bills. The last energy bill, however, did get to a conference where we worked out the disagreements between both of the bodies, and the ensuing conference report was then passed by this body and then went to the other body and was subject to a filibuster which, of course, is in their rules. In order to break that filibuster, it takes 60 votes. They got 58 votes. The presumption would be if they had a chance to vote up or down on the bill that perhaps they would have enough votes to pass the energy bill. But I think it is even more instructive to go back and reflect on how we got to this point of the conference report. In the House alone in the last 3 years, we had 80 public hearings on energy policy in this country. We had 11 markups in the various committees on this energy bill. They considered 224 amendments, and we had 5 days of floor debate with 39 amendments in this body. In the other body, there were 37 hearings, there were eight markups, and they had weeks of debate on the floor. When they finally got to conference, which of course is the final product which will develop the bill which will ultimately be the policy of this country, there were nine public hearings, there were 24 hours of debate. On a bipartisan basis, there were 10 staff meetings working out some of the details, and to say that this was not made public totally misses the point because there were 14 titles and 1,163 pages of text posted on the Web. It is not surprising then with this background that the conference report dealing with our energy policy would pass on a bipartisan basis: 246 in this body to 180 against. So I would just remind the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that there was a great deal of work that went into this. We are simply bringing the bill back again with the idea to pass an energy bill that we need, and we need it very badly. It has been reflected, of course, in the higher prices of gasoline, which, I might add, are starting to reduce because of market pressures; and I am in favor of that. With that, Mr. Speaker, I think to set the record straight there has been a great deal of work that has gone into the original bill and into this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bills. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 671 is a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy Act of 2004; and H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4503, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources, and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule also provides one motion to recommit. Section 2 of the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4517 to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule also provides one motion to recommit H.R. 4517. Mr. Speaker, the first bill provided for under the rule, H.R. 4503, reflects the conference report on H.R. 6 that passed the House this November by a vote of 246 to 180. It is a bipartisan, comprehensive energy plan that is focused on providing a secure and diverse energy supply for our Nation. There is bipartisan agreement on this plan to modernize our power generation systems, improve conservation and promote the development of renewable energy resources. The predominant source of energy varies among the different regions of our country. The bipartisan energy plan is comprehensive and addresses energy produced from oil, natural gas, wind, biomass, solar, coal, nuclear, and hydro. In my area, the Pacific Northwest, Mr. Speaker, our primary source of power comes from hydroelectric dams. Clean, low-cost hydropower was critical to building the Northwest's economy. Whether it was electricity to irrigate central Washington's farms or to build airplanes in Seattle, it was vital to our economy. This bipartisan agreement includes reforms to the lengthy and costly dam relicensing process that is critical to maintaining our region's low-cost hydropower. Environmental protections are preserved while providing flexibility to reduce costs and delays. Getting this plan enacted into law will help keep prices lower for Northwest families and for job-creating businesses. An adequate, affordable energy supply is vital for a growing economy and job creation, and we need to get this plan enacted into law. Mr. Speaker, today, the United States imports nearly 60 percent of its oil. This energy plan contains provisions to reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. The second bill provided for under this rule, H.R. 4517, will also help increase our Nation's energy independence. The United States Refinery Revitalization Act would responsibly encourage the opening of previously closed refineries in the United States and the construction of new refineries to increase the domestic supply of gasoline which would help lower the price at the pump. American demand for gasoline and refined fuels currently outpaces the capacity of our Nation to produce these needed products, and consumption of gasoline is expected to rise as our economy grows over the next 2 decades. Our choice as a Nation is to either increase our dependence on foreign sources of fuel or to help ensure refineries are built in America, which will create jobs here rather than at refineries in other countries. Mr. Speaker, it is time to act and get a bipartisan energy plan enacted into law. It is time to increase America's energy independence. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule, H. Res. 671, and the two underlying bills, H.R. 4503 and H.R. 4517. 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.)