Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak just a minute on the underlying bill that this rule will make in order, and I want to couch that, my remarks, in terms of what I experienced back home in the last year, 9 months to a year. I had several town hall meetings that dealt specifically with the Tax Code, and I can say from those people, and by the way, we had a huge turnout at both those meetings that we had, and I can say without any qualification that those that attended the town hall meetings that spoke regarding a Tax Code, nobody was defending the current tax system, nobody was defending the current tax system. It is also fair to say, however, that there was no unanimity as to what should replace this tax system, but there certainly was a broad consensus and probably near unanimity that we need to do so. The question that faces us today then is how do we get from here to there. Now we heard all of the adjectives about how, and I do not know if the word draconian was used, but it is certainly implied, but let us put things into perspective. What this bill would do would simply say 4 years from now the Tax Code will end. What will happen between now and the end of year 2002? Well, we will go through an election, if this bill were to pass, and obviously it will be the top of everybody's agenda, this Congress will have passed the bill to end the Tax Code. That means that Members in this body would have the opportunity to go to the polls, or to go to election this year, and voters would have an opportunity to go to the polls, ask us what we think would be the best method or best system to replace our Tax Code. We would do that this year, one election cycle. And probably more important, in the year 2000, because of what this bill would allow, we would have a presidential election whose probably primary debate would be centered on the Tax Code. Now at that time I think the American people would be very, very well engaged, and the next Congress after that would be the Congress that would come up with a brand-new Tax Code. My friend from Texas (Mr. Frost) said that he wanted to talk about elementary civics lessons. Let me offer one other addendum to that. An elementary civics lesson as it relates to this body is this: We deal in deadlines. This Tax Code is some 86 years old. It is badly in need of an overhaul and, frankly, scrapping. This sets a time certain for that to happen. It sets a deadline for this body and the President, the next President of the United States, to come together, come up with a Tax Code that the American people will feel comfortable with. So I feel very strongly that this bill needs to be debated, which it will if we pass this rule, and, furthermore, that it needs to be passed so that the Congress can act on this legislation. Now as to this rule, let me make a point. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record what the previous question vote means.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) the author of this legislation.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself as much time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a fair and balanced attempt to bring to the floor an issue that is front and center in every American's mind. The rule provides for a closed rule, which is typical on tax issues. The rule further provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the rule be considered as adopted. The rule also provides 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, anyone who has prepared his or her own tax return understands why so many Americans spend hundreds of dollars to hire professional accountants to complete their tax returns. Considering the Tax Code itself is 3,458 pages long, it is not surprising that the preparation of tax returns is so difficult. It is also not surprising that our complex code requires over 110,000 Internal Revenue Service employees at an annual cost to the taxpayers of $9.8 billion per year. That is just to police the tax collection system. Americans want and need a tax system that is both fair and simple. Today's Tax Code frankly is neither. That is why the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) and others has introduced legislation to begin the process of overhauling the current U.S. Tax Code. The Tax Code Termination Act will set a date certain for the expiration of Federal tax laws that currently govern the collection of America's corporate, personal, estate, and excise taxes. Under the Tax Code Termination Act, the current Tax Code would continue on the books for 4 more years. At that time, the current system would expire and be replaced by a new Tax Code that would be thoughtfully and deliberately determined by Congress, the President, and, most importantly, the American people. In addition to terminating the Tax Code, this legislation would protect Social Security and Medicare, require a supermajority of both Houses of Congress in order to raise taxes and eliminate the bias against savings and investment as well as bias against families. The next 4 years will give Congress and the American people plenty of time to debate the merits of the many tax reform proposals currently being discussed, as well as new ideas that will undoubtedly emerge. Having a date certain for the expiration of the Tax Code will keep the issue at the top of the national agenda and force Congress and the President to make the Tax Code fair and simple. The rule sets the stage for this first critical step on the debate on tax reform. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members' support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 472 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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, House Resolution 411 is an open rule providing one hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule makes in order the Committee on Education and the Workforce amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment which shall be considered as read. The rule allows 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. Mr. Speaker, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2888 would amend the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act as they apply to certain private sector employees. Presently so-called inside sales employees, that is, those who sell from inside an employer's premises using telephones, faxes and computers, are subject to the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act while outside sales employees are exempt. As nonexempt, inside sales employees often suffer from reduced earning opportunities because they are limited to a 40-hour workweek. Outside employees, on the other hand, can choose for themselves whether to work additional hours and thus receive incentive pay for additional sales made. This distinction, written into law in 1938, no longer makes sense in 1998. While inside sales employees are often as skilled and productive as outside sales employees, they are discriminated against under this act. Mr. Speaker, in order to minimize the potential for abuse, the exemption authorized under H.R. 2888 is narrowly drawn to cover only inside sales employees who meet a number of specific criteria. For example, such individuals must receive specialized training and develop technical knowledge. They must sell predominantly to regular customers and must receive incentive compensation based on their own selling efforts. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that CBO reports the bill would have no significant impact on the budget and contains no unfunded mandates on local governments or private employers. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for their efforts to correct this clear inequity in the law and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2888. Recognizing that certain Members have expressed reservations about this legislation, the Committee on Rules has reported an open rule in order to provide Members wishing to perfect this bill the freedom to offer their amendments on the floor. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support not only the rule but H.R. 2888, the Sales Incentive Compensation Act. 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. Moakley), 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 461 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Idaho for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of my bill, H.R. 3520, which would adjust the boundary line between the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area and the Wenatchee National Forest. This is a relatively simple, noncontroversial measure which is supported by both the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service. This boundary line adjustment is meant to consolidate the property of Mr. George Wall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. Unfortunately, due to an original drafting error, a portion of Mr. Wall's property is included in the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area and a portion in the Wenatchee National Forest. This condition creates some confusion regarding the coordination of Federal land policy in this area. First of all, let me make this point, that this is a very remote area of central Washington. It is several hours away by boat from the nearest city. It is primarily national forest and national wilderness lands with very little privately held land in this area. This bill is targeted to help not only one landowner but also the American people as a whole and will have no impact on any other private land. In 1968 when the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area was created, Mr. Wall was assured that his property would remain within the Wenatchee National Forest. H.R. 3520 would uphold this original commitment to Mr. Wall by placing all of his property under the U.S. Forest Service jurisdiction. This legislation is personally important to Mr. Wall and it is administratively important to the agencies involved. With the enactment of H.R. 3520, Mr. Wall's property would be entirely within the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, thereby alleviating Mr. Wall's continued need to respond to both Park Service and Forest Service management. Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a May 1995 letter from the Park Service to Senator Slade Gorton of Washington regarding the need for this boundary adjustment. According to the National Park Service, changing the boundary would ``contribute to enhancement of public service as well as more efficient administration of Federal lands and would be of benefit to the landowner in that it would eliminate the necessity of dealing with two separate Federal agencies with different congressional mandates and administrative procedures.'' Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wall's property lies beside Lake Chelan, and the current border cuts through the lake and directly through his property. In order to adjust the border in the most efficient manner, H.R. 3520 would adjust the line starting on the opposite side of the lake toward the northern point of Mr. Wall's land. From there, the new border would wrap around Mr. Wall's property and back to the current border. This change would mean that 65 acres of the lake and 23 acres of Mr. Wall's property would now be outside the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. All told, 88 acres would be transferred to the Wenatchee National Forest. I might point out that the 65 acres of Lake Chelan that will hereinafter be within the National Forest system will not affect the recreational use of the area. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wall has waited for nearly three decades for the Federal Government to address this situation. He is now in poor health, and his family has asked that we might make this adjustment as quickly as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and uphold the original commitment made to Mr. Wall when the boundary was drawn in 1968, 30 years ago.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Chairman's strong leadership on national resource issues generally and, in particular, on his commitment to focus further committee action on the increasing issues of concern to the West. I look forward to helping in any way that I can.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with the original intent of this measure. In fact, I wish the bill even went further toward making Federal agencies accountable for their actions. Mr. Speaker, I think it would surprise many people to know that current law allows Federal bureaucrats to create national wildlife refuges at will without the consent of Congress and without thorough public debate that should accompany any allocation of taxpayer money. The creation of wildlife refuges is particularly important in my district, where we are currently debating the future management of a stretch of the Columbia River called the Hanford Reach. The Department of Energy, which currently owns the land on both sides of the river where the Hanford Reach is, has stated that it no longer needs to own, manage or maintain the land on the opposite side of the river from the Hanford nuclear reservation. However, back in 1971, the Department of Energy had already decided that they did not need to manage their own lands and signed a lease agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage a portion of the lands as a national wildlife refuge. No act of Congress, no public commented, no discussion whatever. Instead, the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge was created through a simple lease agreement with the Department of Energy. Now, I am not suggesting that the national wildlife refuge system has not benefitted our wildlife, and I am not suggesting that this particular refuge has not been important to our area. In fact, far from it. However, continuing to allow the purchase of private property by the Federal Government without thorough and open discussion and the involvement of Congress really belies the national nature of these refuges. The American people must have some level of confidence that our national wildlife refuges are created not only for scientific reasons, but with the appropriate consideration of local concerns and priorities. Because I know that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources shares my concerns on refuge designations, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman so he might indicate whether the committee plans to address this issue in the future.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share my views on this legislation. As my colleagues know, this legislation has supporters and detractors. Several hundred of my own constituents have contacted me on this issue over the past several months. And while many support our efforts here today, others, particularly small banks in my district, are concerned that the legislation does not do enough to assist their industry. In particular, I strongly share their concerns about the lack of relief from the burdensome Community Reinvestment Act. Let me share a few statistics. The CRA, first passed in 1977, took only two pages of bill language when first authored by former Senator William Proxmire. Yet our federal regulators have now promulgated more than 275 pages of regulations--in microscopic government type, mind you--governing this provision. As a result, what was meant to be a community based, largely voluntary program to infuse private capital into struggling areas has now become a massive, burdensome, and counterproductive federal mandate. According to one study, our financial community spends more than $1 billion each year, and 15 million man hours, complying with the CRA. The impact is particularly hard on smaller banks, which incur three times the compliance costs of larger institutions. Some had suggested that CRA requirements be reformed to bring them back in line with the original intent of the 1977 law. One proposal would have provided relief for all banks smaller than $100 million in assets, and for rural banks with assets of under $250 million. This would have gone a long way towards relieving this tremendous financial and paperwork burden on the small community banks in my district. Unfortunately, the bill does not include this common sense reform. While I am very disappointed with this result, I nonetheless believe that we must take action to reform our depression era banking statutes. In addition, many of my constituents have contacted me to urge their support of this legislation. As a result, I will support this bill today in an effort to keep the reform effort alive. But I will work during the next few months to ensure that critical reforms, like CRA reform, are included in any final package approved by both the House and the Senate and sent to the President.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the rule just adopted.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent).