Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg). (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 139 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 139 is a structured rule providing for consideration of House Joint Resolution 37, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitation. The joint resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. This rule provides for 3 hours of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule further provides for one motion to amend if offered by the minority leader or his designee, which shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, there is no more appropriate day than April 15 for the House to take up this proposed constitutional amendment. When it comes to taxes, this is the day of reckoning for tens of millions of America's families. Indeed, at this very moment, while we conduct this debate here in the Capitol, millions of our constituents are racing frantically against the clock to complete their taxes, struggling to make sense of an extraordinary complex Tax Code that has been amended more than 4,000 times just since the 1980s. H.J. Res. 37, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), starts from this very basic premise: It should be harder, not easier, for government to forcibly take from its citizens ever larger shares of the fruits of their labor. Why? Because today the average American pays more in taxes than it does for food, clothing, shelter or transportation combined. For too long, the tax burden imposed by government has been going up, not down. When I was younger, in the 1950s, a typical family with children sent $1 out of every $50 it earned to the Federal Government in taxes. Today that figure is $1 out of every $4. Unless things change, it will soon be $1 out of every $3. In fact, Madam Speaker, when I visit high schools in my district in central Washington and speak to the senior class, nothing seems to get the students' attention like reminding them that as soon as they start working full time in 1 to 5 years, depending on where they go to college, government at all levels will take nearly 40 cents out of every dollar they earn. Every single one of them, the best students and the worst, gets the message. Even those that are not going to go on to higher education or to some other college are smart enough to understand the frustration of working for 60 cents on the dollar. They are also smart enough to know that without some sort of meaningful restraint on Congress, taxes will only keep going up on them as they have on their parents and their grandparents. The proposal of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the constitutional amendment, would not make it impossible to raise taxes. It would simply require that those proposing a net tax increase, a net tax increase, make a strong enough case to win the support of two- thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. Nor would this proposal impede the passage of measures designed to raise some taxes while lowering others, as long as the combined effect of those changes do not result in an overall tax burden on the American people. Madam Speaker, the polls may be somewhat ambiguous on whether the public supports tax cuts, but there is absolutely no confusion about where they stand on this proposal. An overwhelming majority of Americans are opposed to tax increases, and they clearly support the supermajority requirement of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). I hope this Congress will, too. Therefore, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support both this rule and the proposed constitutional amendments that we will be debating shortly. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the distinguished ranking member from the Committee on Rules, 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. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H. Res. 124 and H.R. 469. My name was apparently added in error in place of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 41, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 85 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, House Resolution 85 is an open rule providing 1 hour of general debate. It would be equally divided and controlled between the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule provides that each section of the bill shall be considered as read. Furthermore, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. The rule also permits the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15- minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for 1 motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 603, reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, would clarify that the Death on the High Seas Act shall not be the controlling law in lawsuits arising from aviation crashes into the high seas. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that families of passengers killed in airline disasters are not treated differently under law depending on whether the aircraft crashed over land or water. This discrepancy arises from a Supreme Court ruling in Zicherman versus Korean Airlines that applied the Death on the High Seas Act to lawsuits related to crashes over the ocean. Under the Death on the High Seas Act, Mr. Speaker, families are denied the ability to seek compensation in a court of law for such noneconomic factors as a loss of companionship of a loved one, relatives' pain and suffering, or for punitive damages. Under existing law, for example, parents receive virtually no compensation in the death of a child. On the other hand, if a plane crashes over land, State tort laws usually apply, offering a broader range of legal remedies to surviving family members. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) and his colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have made this legislation an early priority this session, and have requested an open rule, which was granted by the Committee on Rules without dissent. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support House Resolution 85, and 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 distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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. 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, H. Res. 86 is an open rule waiving clause 4(a) of rule XIII, that requires a 3-day layover of the committee report, against consideration of the bill. I would advise my colleagues that the committee's report was, however, filed yesterday on March 2. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule provides that the bill shall be open for amendment at any point. Furthermore, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. The rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 661 will prohibit the operation of supersonic aircraft, such as the Concorde, in the United States if the European Union adopts a rule prohibiting the operation of U.S. aircraft that have been modified to reduce noise emissions or fitted with new engines. The Europeans claim the EU rule is an environmental issue, but in fact it is a trade issue, because the rule would effectively prevent U.S. airlines from selling their aircraft to European airlines if those aircraft have been modified. Ironically, however, the proposed EU regulation would not prevent European airlines from selling their own modified aircraft to other European airlines. This legislation, then, is intended to send a signal that the U.S. will not sit for such blatant discrimination and that U.S.-modified aircraft should be treated no differently than similarly modified European airplanes. Mr. Speaker, CBO estimates that H.R. 661 would have no immediate impact on the Federal budget and that the bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The bill would, however, provide a new private-sector mandate on British Airways and Air France, the operators of the Concorde, although such mandates are not expected to exceed the $100 million threshold. Mr. Speaker, none of us relishes retaliatory measures of this type. Indeed, we wish they were, in fact, unnecessary. But fair is fair and, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 86 and the underlying bill, H.R. 661. 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 distinguished 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 86 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I thank the gentleman for that brief clarification on this legislation. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule and the underlying legislation because this legislation provides some long overdue reforms to address the burden of federally mandated paperwork. As a former small businessman before I got into this life, I know how time consuming these friendly forms can be. Like all working Americans, small business men and women resent these activities that slow down their productivity. Frankly, when a friendly form found its way to my desk when I was in business, I would first look to see if the words ``voluntary'' or ``required'' were printed anywhere, and honestly, if I did not have to fill it out, that form would end up in the circular file. Madam Speaker, that is why Congress needs to pass the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act and the President needs to sign it into law. This commonsense legislation simply requires that the Internet and the Federal Register list all required paperwork by industry. I know from experience that all of the incoming forms and surveys can be difficult to keep track of especially when we cannot see the relevance or purpose of taking the time to fill out some of these forms. In addition, in the event that a required form ends up in the circular file, this legislation protects that small business owner from unnecessary fines. The bottom line is that most of the information that the Federal Government collects through forms and surveys is of questionable value to the business community. We do not need alphabet soup agencies and federal bureaucracies involved in market research. That is the responsibility of the private sector. Useless paperwork in my view is one place to start. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the author of this bill, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), and I look forward to working with him on other measures to help small businesses succeed.

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 am in favor of the articles of impeachment. I ran for Congress in order to pass laws--not to pass judgment. But events have transpired over the past year that have put me in a position to decide whether President Clinton lied under oath, obstructed justice and violated the powers of his office. There's no question that this is the most difficult decision I will have to make as a Member of Congress. In my judgment, Bill Clinton has disgraced the Presidency and is no longer fit to hold the highest office in the land. For that reason, I will vote in favor of all four articles of impeachment to be considered today by the House of Representatives. If impeached, it is my hope that President Clinton would spare the Nation a trial in the Senate by resigning as soon as possible. In the event he does not resign, I am hopeful that the Senate would quickly complete his trial and vote to remove him from office. Like most Americans, I wish the President had not lied under oath and had not urged others to do so--but he did. Unfortunately, he can't simply wish that away, and neither can I. Our system of justice is built on the principles of truth and honesty. That's why charges of lying under oath and obstruction of justice are so serious. They are an assault on the basic rule of law that cuts to the very core of our system of government. Some suggest that lying under oath and obstructing justice by the President under certain conditions are different--and even acceptable-- than lying under oath and obstructing justice by an ordinary citizen. In my mind, there are not certain conditions that meet this test. Nobody is above the law, including the President of the United States. That goes to the heart of the decision we will make today. That decision should not be one that is judged 25 or 50 days from now. Instead, it should stand the test of time to be favorably judged 25 or 50 years from now because the decision sends a message that either supports or compromises the rule of law. Let's remind ourselves that we are only here temporarily and the President is only here temporarily. The office of the 4th District Congressman from Washington and the office of the President will endure after its present occupants leave. But these offices will only have meaning if the basic rule of law is sustained. This is not personal, it transcends that. In fact, it is impossible to enter the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, without being struck by four words above the entrance: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Those words, more than any others, have guided my decision. After all, since its founding more than two centuries ago, ours has been a government of laws and not of men--which means, in essence, that unlike most other countries, here in the United States no man or woman is above the law. Not you. Not me. Not this President. Not any President. This ordeal has gone on long enough. The President has had his say, and his critics have had theirs. Now, the rule of law means the law must rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1134, a bill granting the consent and approval of Congress to an interstate forest fire protection compact entered into by the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington, as well as the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, and the Yukon Territory. Mr. Speaker, this bill fulfills the Constitutional requirement for Congressional consent to the compact negotiated by these eight states and provinces. Specifically, the compact enables the fire management agencies of the participating states and provinces to cooperate in combating wildfires across state and national borders. As the representative of a district that frequently experiences extensive and destructive wildfires, I am well aware of the need for regional cooperation in containing them. This compact will allow the region to mobilize all its available resources to combat wildfires and minimize their damage. This locally driven legislation was passed unanimously by the other body on July 31 of this year, and has strong bi-partisan support from the northwest congressional delegation. I urge my colleagues to support this cooperative effort to suppress wildfires in the northwest and pass this bi-partisan legislation.