Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

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 Committee on Rules, a gentleman who has worked extremely hard on this continuity issue.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we are going to have more debate on this important issue of continuity in Congress. We will have several more opportunities, and I suspect we will have plenty of time to have that debate. I certainly hope we will.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 602 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2004. The rule provides 60 minutes of general debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII requiring the inclusion of general performance goals and objectives in a committee report. The unanimous consent request just agreed to provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment which shall be considered as read. The original text for purpose of the amendment will not include the text of part A of the Committee on Rules report. The unanimous consent agreement also makes in order the bipartisan amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) in lieu of the Skeleton-Maloney amendment printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report. The rule provides that the amendments made in order shall be offered 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 the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the whole House or in the Committee of the Whole. Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, made clear that, as much as we might wish otherwise, at some point in the future it may be necessary to replace a large number of Members of this body killed in some type of a terrorist attack. As my colleagues know, the Constitution has always required that the vacancies in the House, no matter how many or what their cause, be filled only by popular election of the people. The timing of such special elections is set on a state-by-state basis. Some States require that congressional vacancies be filled relatively quickly while others it takes quite a few months before a special election is held. Such disparities are little cause for concern when vacancies are few and far between, as has thankfully been the case throughout the long history of this body. In those cases, only the citizens of a district temporarily left without representation are adversely affected until that vacancy is filled. However, Mr. Speaker, we face a grim new reality today. The reality is that so many vacancies might suddenly occur in the House that our ability to function and to be confident that the decisions made in this Chamber reflect the broad desires of the American people, as expressed by their ballots, could be severely impaired. That harsh new reality must be faced squarely. This, after all, is a national government and we are the Nation's legislature exercising national responsibilities. We must be able to act in the best interest of the Nation, and never more so than following a major catastrophe. No longer, Mr. Speaker, do we have the luxury of leaving it to the 50 States to decide when it would be possible to fully reconstitute the people's House in the wake of a deadly tragedy. My colleagues will recall that after the attacks of September 11 the House passed H. Res. 559 expressing the sense of the House that each State should examine its existing statutes, practices, and procedures governing special elections so that in the event of catastrophic vacancies in the House, those vacancies might be filled in a timely fashion. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, only one State, the State of California, has responded to that request and changed its election laws to provide for expedited special elections in the wake of a catastrophe. I should note also, Mr. Speaker, that the impetus for that resolution was in part work done by a bipartisan task force chaired by the House Republican Policy Committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and my colleague across the aisle, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who then served as the chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. The Cox-Frost task force met regularly during the 107th Congress to consider a wide range of issues following under the umbrella of the ``continuity of Congress.'' Since then I am pleased that a number of Members on both sides of the aisle have continued this important dialogue, seeking neither personal gain nor partisan advantage. After all, surely no Member's election will be won or lost over this issue, nor should it. The bill we will consider today represents but one part of a comprehensive strategy for preparing for the unthinkable. For that is what we are doing, preparing for the unthinkable. And prepare we must. H.R. 2844 is a key element of that strategy. We simply must make it possible for the people to reconstitute the people's House as quickly as possible if a large portion of this body is suddenly deceased. To be sure, there are other equally important continuity issues still to be addressed. We must, for example, consider appropriate responses in the event that a large number of Members are incapacitated rather than killed. Certainly in a time of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, that is a potential scenario that cannot be ignored. In order to act, the Constitution requires the House to achieve a quorum of Members, a quorum of a majority of all Members living and sworn. When a Member dies or resigns, the Speaker under the rules adjusts the quorum. However, the Framers never contemplated and made no provision for the need to adjust the required quorum when a large number of Members are still living but unable to carry out, temporarily or otherwise, the duties of the office. Simply put, under current law, if more than half the House were to become incapacitated, yet not deceased, the House would be unable to act at a time when the need to do so could hardly be greater. Therefore, I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to advise my colleagues that this complex issue of incapacitation will be the subject of a hearing to be held next week by the House Committee on Rules under the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), whose personal involvement and leadership on these issues, frankly, has gone largely unreported, but has contributed immeasurably to this important continuity in Congress effort. Indeed, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the Committee on the Judiciary chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), are the principal authors of the bill which will shortly be before us, the Continuity Representation Act of 2004. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2844, which was reported favorably by both the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on the Judiciary, provides for the expedited special election of new members to fill seats left vacant due to extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances would be deemed to exist when the Speaker announces that vacancies in the House exceed 100 Members, in other words, more than 100 Members of this body have been killed. When such extraordinary circumstances occur, a special election must be held within 45 days unless a regularly scheduled election is to occur within 75 days. The bill provides political parties with a 10-day window in which to nominate candidates and sets forth judicial review procedures for announcements by the Speaker regarding those vacancies. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 2844 would have no significant impact on the Federal budget. Although the bill does contain an unfunded mandate, this mandate does not exceed the threshold amount established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me acknowledge that there are some Members in this Chamber who believe that we should amend the Constitution to permit the immediate appointment of replacements in the event that a tragedy as I described should occur. That is not my position, Mr. Speaker, for I share the framers' love for their ideal of a House of Representatives of the people, for the people, and elected by the people. But I do sincerely believe that our colleagues who support the constitutional amendment deserve an opportunity for consideration of the merits of that approach. Many Members will be pleased to learn that we have been assured that such an opportunity will take place in the very near future. At the same time, I think equally important would be to provide supporters of expedited special elections an opportunity to consider their legislation. Those who disagree should bear in mind that enacting this bill that we are going to take up today will do little or nothing to affect the odds of a constitutional amendment of continuity being adopted and eventually ratified. And, for at least several years, neither approach precludes the other. Because let us be completely honest about this: even if successful, under the best circumstances, it takes several years to amend the Constitution. So in the meantime does it not make sense to do the work that we can within our existing constitutional framework to prepare for the worst? Mr. Speaker, that is the question that can only be answered by the entire House. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the rule for the consideration of H.R. 2844 so that the important debate may begin. 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 Texas (Mr. Frost), 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 602 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just remind Members that the Committee on Rules made in order three substitutes, and I erred when I said the Spratt amendment was only for 40 minutes; it is actually for 60 minutes. The other ones are for 40 minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Budget had a very extensive markup session; I think we had roll call votes on something like 25 particular items to add to the budget in particular areas. So we had a vigorous debate on that. Yesterday, in the Committee on Rules, there was again vigorous debate on the amendments that were offered. It has always been the tradition when we deal with the budget document, which I might add is the broad blueprint for our appropriation process that is coming up later on, but it has always been the tradition when we do the budget document that the amendments that we make in order are full substitutes. The gentleman spoke about his concern of the pay-go issue, and one of the substitutes that we made in order, the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget substitute, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), has precisely that issue within the substitute. So we will have a vigorous debate on that. The Committee on Rules made in order 40 minutes for each of those substitutes. I might add that three of the substitutes that we made in order come from the other side of the aisle, and one of those substitutes comes from our side of the aisle. So we will, I think, have a vigorous debate on the issue that the previous speaker just brought up, and I think it will be a healthy debate; and then we will let the will of the House make that determination. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 574 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2005. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution which may be offered 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, and shall not be subject to amendment. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. The rule further provides, upon the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, for a final period of general debate not to exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. Finally, the rule permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical consistency and provides that the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question of its adoption. Mr. Speaker, the Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2005, H. Con. Res. 393, provides for $2.4 trillion in total Federal spending for the next fiscal year and sets us on course to cut the deficit in half in 4 years. The resolution provides for total discretionary spending of $818.736 billion in fiscal year 2005. Discretionary defense spending is at the President's requested level of $402 billion. The resolution also accommodates the President's requested increase in homeland security, minus a 0.5 percent efficiency savings. Non-defense, non-homeland security spending is held level for fiscal year 2005. The resolution also responsibly provides for up to $50 billion in fiscal year 2005 for additional costs related to operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Total veterans spending is increased by $1.2 billion for the next fiscal year, and the resolution does not include any of the fees proposed in the administration's budget. It should be noted, also, Mr. Speaker, that no new mandatory spending is provided for in this resolution. Reconciliation instructions are included directing the Committee on Ways and Means to report a bill by October 1 that prevents a tax increase over the next 5 years. Without a change in the law, expiring provisions in the 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills would result in a tax increase on Americans beginning next year. The resolution also accommodates changes needed to write permanently into law the $1,000 child tax credit, the marriage penalty relief, and setting the lowest income tax bracket at 10 percent. Additional reconciliation instructions direct five House committees to report bills by July 15 of this year to eliminate $13.2 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse from government programs over the 5 years of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Rules and Budget Committees, I would like to congratulate Chairman Dreier on a fair rule allowing for open debate and Chairman Nussle for producing a budget that is focused on defense, economic growth, and our Nation's long history as a land of opportunity. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this budget is about securing America, creating jobs, and responsible planning. American families do not have unlimited bank accounts. They have budgets, and they prioritize how they spend and save their money. The Federal Government must set budgets and prioritize spending as well. This budget continues our commitment to defense and homeland security as the Federal Government's number one responsibility, just as our Founding Fathers intended. It provides for increased funding to help secure America's borders, defend against biological attacks, protect our critical infrastructure, and train and equip our first responders. And it takes a comprehensive, responsible approach to protecting our Nation, winning the war on terror and preparing our military for future security threats and challenges. Mr. Speaker, by avoiding tax increases and protecting the child tax credit and relief from the marriage tax penalty and relief for lower- income workers, our budget continues the policies that are helping our economy to recover. Our economy is growing, not as fast as I would like, but it is headed in the right direction, and we need to keep it on track that way. Raising taxes would stop this growth dead in its tracks. I believe in balanced budgets, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to have served in the House when Republicans produced the first balanced budget in 40 years. But I do not believe in balancing the budget by simply shifting the burden to American workers, families, and business owners in the form of tax increases. Our budget is focused on allowing the Committee on Appropriations to make the responsible spending choices and fund the highest priorities within the overall framework established by this resolution. We provide for full funding of the Medicare law to provide seniors help in paying for their prescription drugs for the first time ever. We continue the yearly increases in education spending and fund the No Child Left Behind Act so that our children are better prepared for the future, and we provide an additional $1.2 billion for veterans' health care. Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from Iraq, and that trip served as a close-up reminder of the hard work and sacrifices made by those who serve in the Armed Forces. We made our promises to veterans, and those promises must be kept. Our budget provides for these priorities, strengthens our defense, and puts us on track to cut the deficit in half in the next 4 years, with declining deficits in the future, and is accomplished without raising taxes on the American people. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying resolution. 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 Texas (Mr. Frost), ranking minority member of the committee, 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 574 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from Texas that I have no further requests for time, and if he is prepared to yield back his time, I am certainly prepared to yield back my time. Perhaps the 6 hours of debate took all the steam out of what we have been talking about here.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of March 22 to grant a rule which would limit the amendment process for the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005. Any Member who wishes 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, no later than 5 p.m. on Tuesday, March 23. As in past years, the Committee on Rules intends to give priority to amendments offered as complete substitutes. Members are advised that the text of the concurrent resolution, as ordered, reported by the Committee on the Budget, should be available on the Web sites of both the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Rules on Friday, March 19. Mr. Speaker, Members should use the Office of Legislative Council and the Congressional Budget Office to make sure that their substitute amendments are properly drafted and scored, and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the Rules of the House.

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.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a rule that provides for the consideration of the consolidated spending bill. It is something that we must do in this Congress to fund the government. That is what this rule is all about. I urge support of that.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 Texas (Mr. Frost), 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. Speaker, House Resolution 473 is a rule waiving all points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2673, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, and against its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 fully complies with the fiscal parameters of the budget resolution and contains $328.1 billion in discretionary spending and $820 billion in total spending including mandatory funds. Mr. Speaker, the bill also includes an across-the-board reduction of .59 percent in all programs, projects and activities, except for Defense and Military Construction funds. The Committee on Appropriations is to be commended for moving with dispatch to make this conference report available so that the House can complete its work on funding measures before the conclusion of the First Session. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), an individual that has had a great deal of impact on this legislation.