Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who probably knows more about the Secure Rural Schools Act than anybody in this country, and it is probably because his district is the second most impacted of any district in the country.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is really very, very important because we are at the last days of this session and we know there is a rush to try to get things done. And I understand that it was a bookkeeping--it wasn't intentional. I understand all of that, we've been through this before. But the significance of this, and it needs to be understood by this body as we are being asked in the future to make some big decisions, the difference in this little error was $100 million. It wasn't small potatoes, so to speak. And I just want to say that the right thing to do--and I hope this is what's going to happen--is that the Rules Committee goes back upstairs and reports it out correctly so we can have the text. But I think that point needs to be made. And I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the broad bill and speak as to how important that bill is. I think it is vitally important to extend these tax extenders. Frankly, I think these tax extenders that we have here ought to be made permanent, but maybe we will have a debate on that at a future time. It is especially important to my State of Washington, because it allows for the sales tax deduction of State sales tax from my Federal income tax obligation, because Washington State, along with six or seven other states, doesn't have an income tax, and this is simply a fairness issue. So this is a very important bill, very broadly, but it is not a complete bill. This bill in its current form will not pass the Senate and therefore will not become law. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? The reason why is because it leaves out a very, very important provision, a provision that the Senate put in there, and I don't always like to congratulate the Senate, but in this case, in their wisdom, to take care of a problem that faces rural America, especially, and especially rural America that has a lot of Federal lands, and that is the Secure Rural Schools Act. It extends it for 4 years. What is this act? This act is simply an act to recognize that Federal policies in the past, i.e. policies that don't allow some communities to log their Federal lands and get the revenue from that, puts a big hurt on local government and school districts. The Secure Rural Schools Act is designed to mitigate that because of Federal policy. Now, what I can't understand about this is this has broad bipartisan support. It has had support a number of times. And, here we are, winding our way down in this Congress, and you would think that the broad bipartisanship of this would recognize that the Senate passed this bill 93-2 and that they say I think this has a pretty good chance of becoming law. But, no, earlier this morning I offered an amendment to the rule to allow me to simply bring up the opportunity to vote up or down on this issue, and it was defeated on a partisan vote. Mr. Speaker, this issue is very, very important. I have in front of me here, Mr. Speaker, and I will include it for the Record, a letter from the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition. The essence of this--and it is dated today--a letter to Speaker Pelosi to include this provision in the Tax Extenders Act. Well, it is in the act. It is in the act that passed the Senate. Now maybe there are politics being played with this. I know that we are in a political arena here, sometimes that happens, but I think the Speaker of the House, who comes from urban San Francisco, doesn't understand rural America. I would suggest that probably the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who comes from urban New York City, doesn't understand the needs of rural America. I can only think that's the reason it wasn't included in something that has broad bipartisan support. I think that we should defeat this rule, and I think what we need to do at the end of the day is to pass the Senate bill, because we know the President will sign it. He has sent a letter to every Member of the House saying that he would sign that bill. I don't like to concede everything to the Senate. There are a lot of times I disagree with what they are saying. But I think we need to take into account what the majority leader has said. I think we need to take into account what was said by the senior Senator from Oregon. By the way, Oregon is one of these States that are heavily hit, impacted by the lack of rural school language in this bill. Senator Wyden said, after passage of the Senate bill, and I quote, ``Now it's up to the House and the President to do the right thing, or thousands of critical employees in hundreds of communities across Oregon could face a very difficult winter.'' Well, I have got to tell you, the President is on board. He doesn't have to say the President would do the right thing, the President said he would sign this bill. It's up to the House. The way to accomplish that is to defeat this rule so we can take up the Senate bill and concur with them, send it to the President's desk, and it will become law. National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition, Red Bluff, CA, September 25, 2008. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi: We are writing this letter to ask that you please include four years of funding for Secure Rural Schools and PILT in the final version of the Tax Extenders Act of 2008. As you are aware this legislation is crucial to school children and teachers across the nation, and the continuation of vital county services. The Administration ``supports prompt passage'' of H.R. 6049, and has not threatened to veto that legislation if it includes funding for Secure Rural Schools and PILT. We would very much appreciate your leadership on this issue. You have an opportunity to ensure that school children are afforded the opportunity for a quality education. We look forward to working with you, and other members of Congress, to include this funding package in the final legislation. Thank you for all your efforts on our behalf. Sincerely, Robert E. Douglas, Executive Director.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Speaker, there are two points I want to make, and I know there are Members on your side that have advocated paying for things. Yesterday we had two tax bills on the floor, the AMT fix, that didn't have a pay-for, and the disaster relief which didn't have a pay-for. So we have made exceptions to that in the past. This issue has been in front of us for some time. It is absolutely critical to these communities involved. Now I would suggest, in fact, when Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon was upstairs in the Rules Committee this morning in your stead, he suggested that rural schools probably shouldn't be on this bill, particular bill, because it's a tax bill. I will concede that that may be a logical course of action. But if that is the case, it seemed to me there should have been another vehicle, like an appropriation bill in the CR, and it wasn't on the CR. We are running out of time, is what I am just suggesting to my friend. Let me ask my friend, if this bill does not pass, is there any likelihood whatsoever of the Senate bill that passed 93-2 being enacted into law?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Far be it from me to defend the actions of the other body. I am a Member of this House and I am proud to be a Member of this House. But we have to recognize this is a bicameral process. Sometimes we have to recognize, as they have to recognize on some legislation that we pass, where we don't move, and that's happened in the past. This one is a 93-2. That is overwhelming, and it includes language, as I mentioned on Secure Rural Schools, that is very, very important. So I hope that the Senate bill passes. I would urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, as I mentioned, and the underlying bill so we can take that up, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the length of time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for going on 14 years, and I thought I understood how this system works. We have Republicans and we have Democrats. And always, I think, it's in the best interest of the American people when we can work in a bipartisan way. The issue I want to address myself to is the Secure Rural Schools Act. It expired. It is very, very important to States, particularly in the western part of the United States where there's a big influence of Federal lands and particularly forest lands. I just caught the end of what my colleague from Oregon talked about as to why we are in this situation in the first place. But I can tell you, this is a big economic hit for those rural areas because they don't get the revenue from the Federal lands that they otherwise would have had. But what I don't understand is that this issue has strong bipartisan support. I serve on the Rules Committee, and there are five of my Democrat colleagues on the Rules Committee, five out of nine, that are cosponsors of this legislation. We know that we are nearing the end of this Congress. And we know that there are things that have to pass. The tax extender package is a very important package for other provisions in that bill. For example, the sales tax deductibility for States that don't have a State income tax. Florida is in that situation. There are several members of the Rules Committee that are affected by that. My State is one of those. But this issue of Secure Rural Schools is very, very important. I have four counties in my district that are impacted, and one that is heavily impacted, impacted in a way that my friend from Oregon (Mr. Walden) talked about. What I find rather confusing about this is that we have now a bill that will be brought before us that we could pass in a nanosecond. It's a tax extender bill that the Senate sent over with a vote of 93-2. It has essentially the same provisions that I think everybody agrees, taxes that need to be extended. But it has the provision and a fix to the Secure Rural Schools for 4 years. For 4 years. It allows those communities now to make some plans as to what the transition may be in the future, since we--of course, I think the best thing we ought to do is utilize our Federal lands. But if that's not going to happen, at least they'll have some time to plan for it. This morning, and, by the way, we got the text of this bill at 9:52 this morning, which is a little over 3 hours ago, even though we were told that we're going to have 24 hours to look at any bill. But we had it at 9:52 this morning. And we discovered that the Secure Rural Schools Act was out of the House bill. It wasn't in there. Well, I'm a member of the Rules Committee, and as a member of the Rules Committee, you can amend the rules by suspending rules to put certain provisions in that you think need to be passed. It happens all the time, especially at the end of the session. So here we are, this morning, discovered the Secure Rural Schools wasn't in there. I questioned the individual from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon, who came up and testified on the bill, if this was in there. It wasn't in there. By the way, his State is affected. Even though his district isn't affected, his State is affected. So I asked him why this was not in the bill. And his response to me was, well, this is a tax bill and really the Secure Rural Schools issue is a spending issue, so we felt it shouldn't be part of the package. Well, I said, if that's the case, and I accept your argument, then maybe it could go on some appropriation bill. And then I thought, wait a minute. Yesterday we had a continuing resolution with three appropriation bills that passed this House, and Secure Rural Schools wasn't on it. I don't know why the Democrat leadership didn't put it on that vehicle. That probably would have been the proper one. But we're running out of time. And the House Rules Committee can suspend the rules and attach a provision to anything they want to. We know the Senate bill came over here 93-2. So, Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment to take the text of the Senate language, which passed 93-2, and asked that that be debated on the House floor, just asked for it to be debated. If it loses, okay. That's fine. But I think there's broad support. But if it loses, I understand that. I called for a vote on that. And the vote was on a party-line vote, 8-3 no. In other words, the five Democrats that are cosponsors of this provision, in the waning days of the session, voted ``no'' to consider this on the House floor.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask my colleagues now to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can simply amend the rule and take up this legislation. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question because, by defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to ensure that the Congress will not adjourn, Mr. Speaker, until a comprehensive energy legislation bill has been enacted. What this means, Mr. Speaker, is passing an all-of-the-above energy plan that, in addition to drilling offshore, we need to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, and shale oil reserves in other parts of our country. We also need to extend renewable energy incentives. We need to streamline approval of new refining capacity in the United States and nuclear power facilities in the United States, and we need to encourage advanced research and development of clean coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies. And finally, we need to minimize drawn-out legal challenges that unreasonably delay and prevent actual domestic energy production, because I had mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that while the offshore is now open on October 1 to exploration, I'm almost sure that the lawsuits will ensue. The bill that I will be amending this rule to contemplate takes care of that provision. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous materials inserted into the Record prior to a vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the normal process for appropriation bills are for them to come to the House floor and be debated under an open rule with the earmarks that are in the bill being open for everybody to look at them. Now I find it rather interesting, when other Members were talking I saw my friend and his staff from Massachusetts frantically going through this 1,100 page bill to try to find earmarks. Well, if we'd gone through normal process, we would have known what those earmarks are. I have always said that I am one that is not necessarily opposed to them, but I think there ought to be transparency to this whole process. And there hasn't been any transparency, because only one, Mr. Speaker, only one of the appropriation bills was passed by the House, and that was not done under an open rule. Had we had the normal process, all these earmarks would have been vetted, asked about, explained and so forth. But here we are, 1 hour to debate this 1,100-page bill of which there are three appropriation bills a part of this CR, and no real process to look at what the earmarks are. That's my whole point. Nothing more than that. Yet because we aren't going through the regular order as we say, open process, in fact we go through 63 closed rules, Members don't have an opportunity to find out how the taxpayers' money is being spent on particular earmarks that all Members of this House have an opportunity to put in these bills. Mr. Speaker, I just wonder what the qualms are over there. It's their process, they run this place, and it hasn't been open. I reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I asked the gentleman about unvetted earmarks, and his response was only his. I was talking about earmarks that everybody else would make, and the gentleman couldn't answer me. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about unvetted earmarks in this bill, and I would be happy to yield to my friend from Massachusetts if he would tell me that he has, and stake his reputation, and he is a very valuable member of this committee, that there are no unvetted earmarks in this massive bill. I will yield to the gentleman if he will give me a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Wow. I couldn't help but listening to my friend from Massachusetts state at least his interpretation of history, but the fact is, just when the American people think that Congress can't sink any lower, the liberal leaders of the House and Senate prove that they are up to this challenge and they are finding another way to do it. I have only 30 minutes to speak today, and that's simply not enough time to detail each of the many broken promises that the Democrat majority made to the American people in the election of 2006, and they have promptly done exactly the opposite. For brevity's sake, let me just list some of the more egregious: Democrat leaders promised the most open House in history. That means allowing Members the open opportunity to offer amendments on the House floor to change and improve legislation. Instead of a record of openness, the Democrats have delivered the most closed down, sit-down- shut-up record in the history of this country. That's not an exaggeration, it's a fact. Sixty-three times the Members of this House have been totally blocked from offering even one amendment on the House floor. They have not just set the record for closing down the House, they have shattered it and left it in the dust. They promised one thing to get elected in 2006, and then promptly have done another thing. In addition to shutting down the House and taking away the ability of Members to offer amendments and alternatives on bills, they perfected a procedure that should be known as the Pelosi ping-pong. It's a trick, it's a gimmick, a game that allows the House and Senate to just ping- pong a bill back and forth between the two Chambers while writing in secret the text of the final legislation that will eventually become law. They play the Pelosi ping-pong to bypass and sneak around the normal process of holding conference committees where the House and the Senate work in public to bridge differences and publicly write final texts of new laws. By playing Pelosi ping-pong, Democrats keep Members of the House, Members of the Senate and the American people in the dark while they work in a back-room way cutting deals, stuffing in unvetted earmarks, and hiding the process from public scrutiny. Despite their loud complaints and protests about conference committees not being properly followed when they were in the minority just 2 years ago, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid have abandoned them almost completely in this Congress for this far more abusive and secret game they are now playing. Speaker Pelosi promised that if the Rules Committee met in the dead of the night, after 10 p.m., that the House would not act on that bill the following day. Yet here we are, early this afternoon, considering a rule and a bill that the Rules Committee didn't even begin meeting on until after 11 p.m. last night. It's another broken promise to the American people. Speaker Pelosi and the liberal leaders of this House promised that a bill would be available for 24 hours before the House would vote on it. This would allow Members to read it and know what they are voting on. The text of this massive bill was not made available to the Rules Committee until 11 p.m. last night. It's over 1,100 pages long, yet the 24-hour waiting period promised by Speaker Pelosi has been abandoned. This massive bill is being rushed through the House. The rules of the House were also unilaterally rewritten by Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats to block a vote on a fair trade agreement with Colombia, which is America's strongest ally in South America. The rules don't say there has to be a yes vote on the agreement, only that it hold a fair yes-or-no vote in a timely manner. Yet instead of respecting our best ally and holding a vote on the agreement, Democrats chose to, instead, change the rules. So this fair trade agreement is essentially being held hostage and is locked away someplace, probably in the basement of the Capitol. The fact is, Colombia already has open access to sell most of their goods into America. It's American farmers and businesses that face tariffs and hurdles to be able to sell their crops and goods into Colombia. This trade agreement is about fairness for American farmers and American workers. The people that Democrats are hurting by blocking a vote on this fair trade agreement are Americans. Colombia has one-way access to our country, which Democrats have overwhelmingly voted on to give them. By passing this agreement, we would be making it a two-way street and give Americans fair access to Colombia. That should be what fair trade is all about. Also, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat leaders promised that earmarks would be scrutinized and be subject to debate and challenge on the House floor. Yet this 1,000-plus page bill contains an untold number of earmarks that have never seen the light of day. They have not been through a public review of any kind, no committee hearing, no debate on the House floor, no Senate and House conference committee review. And today the House is going to spend a grand total of 1 hour reviewing this bill. Mr. Speaker, that is not a broken promise, it really is irresponsible. Now, the reason why this liberal Congress finds itself in this mess is because the fiscal year ends on September 30, and they have yet to pass a single one of the 12 appropriation bills needed to fund the Federal Government starting October 1. This Congress has totally failed in its most basic job. They shut down the work of the Appropriations Committee. In fact, in the middle of a working markup, they literally gaveled the committee to close, got up and left the room and just quit working. I should qualify that, they quit working in public because Democrats have been working feverishly behind closed doors to write this massive spending bill. But why did Democrats punt on their basic responsibility and retreat to work in secret and walk out of a markup? It is because Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to prevent us from lowering gas prices by producing more American-made energy with offshore drilling. Democrats are so opposed to drilling offshore that they shut down the work of the Appropriations Committee. But the good news, Mr. Speaker, on this issue they have failed. Republicans have succeeded in forcing the ban on offshore drilling to be lifted despite the massive battle that Democrats waged for months to try and block it. With passage of this bill, the moratorium on offshore drilling will be lifted. Yet, of course, this is just the first step. Democrats have shown the incredible lengths they will go to to block drilling. While they have been beaten this time, Americans, Mr. Speaker, should not be fooled. Democrats have chosen to play possum because election day is approaching and they want to hide from voters who support drilling offshore. There is much more to do, both now and after election day, to ensure that offshore drilling becomes a reality. But the reality is, Mr. Speaker, that Democrats and their allies will continue to use lawsuits and other tactics to block America from becoming more energy independent. So, Mr. Speaker, this Democrat Congress has broken promise after promise to the American people. It has failed to do the most basic job to pass 12 funding bills by October 1. It is now jamming through a bill that was only made public at 11 p.m. last night, a little over 13\1/2\ hours ago. It is a bill that is over 1,000 pages long. It is a bill written in secret, spends hundreds of billions of dollars and includes untold numbers of earmarks that haven't been publicly vetted. The House will debate this monster piece of legislation for just one hour. Mr. Speaker, for these many reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. This particular earmark you're talking about and the others that I have sponsored have been vetted. In fact, they were in last year's appropriations bill. I have no problem with earmarks being vetted.