Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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 purposes of debate only. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, 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 am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), a former chairman of this subcommittee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 483 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, two points. Am I correct the gentleman has to be on his feet when the vote is called, and it has to be done in a timely manner?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the massive wildfires burning out of control in Arizona today are on the front pages of newspapers all across America reminding people in other parts of the country of the enormous threat these dangerous fires pose to both lives and property. Westerners, however, need no such reminders because we live with the destructive power of wildfires year in and year out. At this time each summer, as the fire season gets under way, thousands of men and women strap on their gear and head out to fire lines seeking to contain one of the most destructive natural forces known to man. Fighting wildfires is dirty, dangerous, and, at times, terrifying work. Those who do it face risks most of us can hardly imagine. They do so knowing that with first-rate training, equipment, and leadership, their efforts will help protect the lives and property of those caught in the path of raging wildfires. Often, firefighters are injured in the line of duty. Sometimes, tragically, lives are lost on the fire line. In some cases, the cause is beyond anyone's control, other times mistakes are made. And mistakes will inevitably be made in these situations, which are so extraordinarily challenging to both the mind and the body. Each time tragedy strikes in this way, it is only natural to seek to understand precisely what happened and why. Mr. Speaker, that desire is at the heart of this legislation before us today. Last summer, in my district, four young firefighters lost their lives fighting a fire known as the Thirty Mile Fire in Okanogan County. They were Tom Craven, Karen Fitspatrick, Jessica Johnson, and Devin Weaver. To most Americans, the people they see fighting wildfires in the news reports are just figures on their TV screens, and that is, of course, understandable. But to those of us in the West, those men and women are our neighbors and our friends; and it is natural for us to want to do all we can to protect those who risk so much protecting us. One of the best ways to protect lives in the future is to fully understand what caused the lost lives in the first place. That must be the unquestioned top priority of the Federal firefighting officials in the aftermath of any lethal wildfire. My bill, H.R. 3971, is to ensure that that is done. This legislation requires the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture to conduct an investigation in the deaths of any firefighters killed by wildfire. This investigation is separate and independent of any Forest Service internal review. An independent examination of what went wrong will help provide information on how similar events can be prevented in the future and how firefighters can better be prepared and protected and how lives can be saved. Independent investigations will also help to ensure oversight and accountability in the Forest Service. Mr. Speaker, this legislation may not benefit the families in my district that have endured the tragic loss of their loved ones; yet I am confident that they, more than anyone, understand the value of requiring independent investigations in the future. Should such a tragedy occur again, everyone concerned will have more confidence and faith in an independent investigation than an internal agency review. It is the hope that no firefighter will lose their life battling a wildfire; yet we should pass this bill to make certain that if there is a loss of life, that tragedy will be independently investigated to identify what happened, why it happened, and how it can be prevented in the future. In addition, no matter how much we improve the quality of investigations, it is vital that we take the necessary steps to improve forest health through reponsible forest management practices. We have already seen too many devastating fires in the West this year that have caused terrible damage and harm to property and families. Congress must act to address forest health and management practices. Regrettably, for too long this has not been a priority of the Federal Government. This ``hands-off approach'' has contributed to the devastation we see today in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, indeed throughout the West. Effective forest management is vital to removing the root causes of forest fires. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Senator Maria Cantwell for her leadership in the other body. She has introduced companion legislation and has tirelessly worked to ensure that this legislation becomes law. The goal of H.R. 3971 is simple and straightforward: Ensuring independent investigations to improve firefighting safety. I urge Members to support H.R. 3971.

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 am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who has been a champion of this issue since he first came to Congress. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 440 is a modified, closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4019, a bill to provide that the marriage penalty relief provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall be permanent. 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 Ways and Means. The rule further 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 New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee. The substitute shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Finally, 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, as with the death tax repeal provisions passed by the House last week, it is necessary for this body to act again today because when Congress enacted the Marriage Penalty Relief of 2001, an arcane procedural rule in the other body required that much-needed relief for married taxpayers be terminated on July 1, 2011. This clearly contradicts the original will of the House as our bill had no sunset provision. We passed marriage penalty relief in the first place because it is unfair and even morally wrong for the Federal Government to tax working men and women at a higher rate if they are married than if they instead choose to remain single while living together. We corrected that inequity because simple fairness demands it. And fundamental fairness also demands that we make that change permanent because to do otherwise means that on January 1, 2011, every married couple in America, every married couple in America, will face a significant tax increase. No one else, just married couples. In fact, failure to act on H.R. 4019 will result in a tax increase of $42 billion in 2010 and 2011 for low and middle income taxpayers alone. That is not what this House intended and it is up to us to do something about it. For that reason I am pleased that the Committee on Ways and Means has reported legislation removing the ``sunset'' provisions of the marriage penalty relief we passed last year. This bill, H.R. 4019, will make the following provisions from last year's law permanent. It will increase the standard deduction for married couples to twice the deduction for single taxpayers. It will increase the width of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples so that it is twice as wide as the bracket for single taxpayers. It will increase the phaseout range of the earned income tax credit by $3,000 for married couples and simplifies the earned income tax credit to reduce tax complexity for low income taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, we are only taking up this legislation because of an obscure procedural obstacle in the other body. We have an opportunity today to correct that injustice, and I urge my colleagues to do so by adopting both this rule and the underlying bill H.R. 4019. 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 440 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that this is a fair rule. It allows for a Democrat substitute, and we can debate that, and if desired, we can vote on that substitute. It also allows for a motion to recommit. We can have a vote on that. But the fact is, this body has spoken on the issue of a death tax several times. It is time to make this death tax relief permanent. It is time to adopt this rule and defeat the previous question and the underlying remarks. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude that the previous question is an exercise in futility because the minority wants to offer an amendment that would otherwise be ruled out of order as nongermane. So the vote is without substance. The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive or policy implications whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an explanation of the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the author of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to respond.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 435 is a modified closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2143, the Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act of 2001. The rule provides 1 hour of debate to be equally divided between 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 report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided by a proponent and an opponent. The rule waives all points of order against the substitute and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, providing for the phaseout and eventual repeal of Federal death taxes on American families, an arcane rule applicable only in the other body required that these long overdue reforms be abandoned after 10 years, in 2011. The original version of the legislation, passed here in this Chamber, contained no such time limitation, and for good reason. That is because the ability of a family or business to plan for the future is seriously undermined whenever major uncertainty exists about the likely tax impact of important financial decisions. In truth, the net effect of the other body's decision to ``sunset `` the death tax repeal is to tell anyone planning to die 10 or more years from now that they might want to reconsider speeding things up. That is not an attempt to be funny, Mr. Speaker, it is the cold hard truth. The issue of death tax repeal has been debated in this Chamber for decades, and the arguments are well known. Last year, when justice was finally done for America's farmers, small businessmen, death tax supporters found a loophole giving them one last chance to prevent America's hard-working families from passing on to their children what they have built up during their lifetimes. Today, Mr. Speaker, thanks to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), we have a chance to close that unfair loophole once and for all. It will be said here today that we have no authority to bind future Congresses and, of course, that is correct. We do, however, have the authority and the responsibility to act on behalf of this Congress and the farmers, the families and the small business people we represent. We should do this, Mr. Speaker, loudly and clearly by adopting this rule and passing the underlying bill, H.R. 2143. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 435 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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