Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee may meet next week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 7 p.m. on Tuesday, December 13, 2005. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Judiciary Committee on December 8, 2005, which is expected to be filed with the House next week. Members are also advised that the text should be available for their review on the Web sites of the Judiciary and Rules Committees by Friday, December 9.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 558 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my neighbor and friend, 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 purpose of debate only.

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 558 is a rule that provides for consideration of House Joint Resolution 72, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2006. As we approach the end of the week and the time that we will be taking in our districts to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday, this particular rule and the CR probably are among the least controversial things that the gentleman from Florida and I will discuss today. I look forward to an abbreviated debate on this.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution and provides one motion to recommit.

I want to commend Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member Obey, and the entire Appropriations Committee in the House for the determined effort this year to avoid an omnibus spending bill. This is something that unfortunately has become a routine part of our end-of-the-year appropriations process and Chairman Lewis under tremendous leadership with a great committee behind him has managed to avoid that this year, in fact, setting almost a record by completing all of the House's work on the appropriations process before July 4.

The committee has practiced due diligence and is working to pass each of these bills individually rather than having them attached as a train at the end of the year. This continuing resolution is necessary because our friends on the other side of the Rotunda are a little bit further behind in their appropriations process and we are working through the conference report stage.

This CR will allow the appropriators to continue that conferencing work to ensure that we have a clean appropriations process where bills are moving individually in the regular order.

Today we are considering the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Bill which leaves just three outstanding appropriations conference reports. The underlying resolution permits Congress to finish its work and provide the President adequate time to review the measures before signing them into law. H.J. Res. 72 simply extends the previous continuing resolution through December 17.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is a one sentence change, only shifting the date to December 17 for the continuing operations for the government.

The CR is a clean continuation of H.J. Res. 68, which passed the House in September by a vote of 348-65, and which funded programs and activities at the lowest of the House-passed level, the Senate-passed level or the fiscal year 2005 current rate and included language prohibiting agencies from resuming or initiating programs for procurement not funded in FY 2005 and prohibited agencies from awarding new grants and other forms of assistance during the period of continuing resolution.

Throughout the appropriations process, the appropriators have demonstrated their commitment to fiscal responsibility by working within the framework we established in the budget resolution earlier this year. Again, I want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the entire committee and staff of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work this year.

I urge Members to support the rules and the underlying continuing resolution so we can finish the appropriations process in regular order and continue on our way toward responsibly funding the needs of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Perhaps I misspoke earlier saying that this would be the least controversial item we would deal with this morning. I recognize that we all had to get up early to be at Rules this morning, and apparently it is affecting some of our temperaments.

I would just point out that we finished all of the House's work, and I gave equal credit to both our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the rest of his committee and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who finished all of our work by July 4, all of our appropriations processes in regular order, in an individual manner instead of having to bundle them up into a train at the end of the legislative season.

To date, we have finished seven of those 11 appropriations bills. We will do the eighth in a couple of hours here on this floor today, which leaves three remaining waiting to be returned from their conference work with the Senate.

So it is often said at times in the House that your opposition is the other party, but your enemy is the other Chamber. And when it comes to the enemy of time and being at the end of the legislative calendar, that, unfortunately, is the case with the appropriations process that we are waiting on regular order, the conference committees with the House and the Senate to finish their work on those three remaining bills.

With respect to the gentleman's concerns about a closed rule, this is a continuing resolution that is one sentence long. It funds the operations of government from now until December 17. The stifling of debate is nonexistent. There are no speakers on either side for this. The fact that it is a closed rule indicates that there is really no other option about how to approach a continuing resolution other than should it be December 16 instead of December 17?

Would the gentleman have the CR expire on Thanksgiving Day when no one will be in this Chamber to act to fund the operations of the government so that national parks remain open and Social Security checks continue to go out?

What would the amendments be that the gentleman would offer if December 17 is an inadequate solution to funding the operations of government until we finish the three remaining conference reports on appropriations?

To say that that is stifling democracy is nothing more than hyperbole.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Just briefly, I respect the gentleman's observation that the majority party in the Senate is the party that I share, the Republican party, but I learned a long time ago to stop trying to answer for that Chamber over there. That is a tough body to figure out. The gentleman knows as well as I do that they tend to bog down in the oratory and slow down on the action.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman clearly has come to the floor a little bit early, because all of these things are going to be eligible for debate here in another several hours when we move forward on our deficit reduction package, and the gentleman will have an opportunity to exercise through his vote that savings process, that deficit reduction process.

But I am just curious, in all the gentleman's rhetoric, what would you do differently about the continuing resolution that funds government through December 17 until we finish our regular appropriations process?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, does the gentleman object to us funding the government through December 17?

Would the gentleman shut down the government to prevent that from occurring?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman is passionate about his concern for the fiscal well- being, but he is clearly misdirected in the sense that he will have an opportunity to vote on a number of these deficit reduction measures, a number of these savings, a number of these government reform mechanisms; and he will have the opportunity to present all of the things that he talked about in his own recommittal motion, which is a right that has been granted to the minority party.

So all of the things that he talked about, all of the things that he objects to, the sound agricultural policy that guarantees that we continue to have the safest, cheapest food supply in the world, if you want to cut those things, you can put it in your program. If you do not like the fact that we are taking Pell grants up, you could object to that through your recommittal motion.

The point is that we are here today debating the rule on the continuing resolution of the government because we have three regular order appropriations bills yet to move, because I believe, to our credit and to this Chamber's credit, to the credit of the entire House, we are not moving a last minute omnibus choo-choo train that all of us have to go home and then discover something in that that we are not real terribly proud of. I think it is a credit to the appropriators on both sides of the aisle and a credit, frankly, to both Chambers, and as the gentleman from Florida has pointed out, under Republican leadership, that are bringing us 11 individual appropriations bills that can be voted on up or down.

You have an opportunity to make your position publicly known on each of those bills, rather than having things stuffed into a last-minute train, which all of us object to and which diminishes the status of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and we have kicked off quite a debate here this morning. We know that it is going to be a long day as we approach the debate over the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the ongoing debate over the continuing resolution to fund our government, and later today the deficit reduction package, which I dare say will not take food from any child in America's mouth, despite the overheated rhetoric of the gentleman from Oregon, respectfully the gentleman from Florida and a number of others on that side of the aisle who it would appear from their media statements discuss in the salons and parlors of the Beltway whether Republicans hate children or old people more.

I dare say that as we bring up this Deficit Reduction Act, which finally for the first time since 1997 puts us back on a serious track to finding savings not just in the discretionary side of our spending but in the mandatory side which makes up over half of Federal spending today and which slows the rate of growth in government, again, one of those Washington, D.C.-style cuts, where budgets grow 7 percent instead of 7.3 percent or they grow 6 percent instead of 6.3 percent, and we find $50 billion worth of savings in a $2.5 trillion per year budget.

So $50 billion in savings over 5 years in what would then be a $14 trillion pot. I think that almost any American would say I think that my budget growing 7 percent instead of 7.3 percent is acceptable, and I dare say to my friend from Florida, who represents, among other counties, Palm Beach County, Florida, the home of Lake Worth Avenue among other places. I think there are a number of counties that would gladly trade their tax base for his, and I would also say that I believe that somewhere in Palm Beach County there is an afterschool program

of some shape or form. There must be an afterschool program somewhere in all of Palm Beach County, Florida.

I believe that as we move through this debate it is important for us to be responsible in our rhetoric and keep our eyes on the ball, which is the looming fiscal crisis that is out there if Congress does not have the courage to get its arms around mandatory spending, which is consuming Federal spending, making up over 50 percent of it today and two-thirds of Federal spending.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman referred to the entire county, not his piece of the county, and I certainly am well aware of Pahokee and Belle Glade and the challenges that they have gone through.

But I believe somewhere in your county you have an afterschool program.

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 560 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's clever props, notwithstanding the holiday stockings, I would point out to the gentleman who repeatedly referred to this being done in the dead of night that in his home district it is 5:30 in the afternoon and people are driving home from work. So for the dead of night on the west coast, the people on the east coast will know that we are not working a nine to five job and that we are pushing ahead with the agenda of reforming the inefficiencies that lay in government.

I would also point out to the gentleman that between 1999 and 2003, total child support enforcement administrative expenditures went up almost 30 percent; 29 percent between 1999 and 2003, as the case load declined 8 percent. Again, their rhetoric does not match well with the facts.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is utilizing the rules that are at his disposal, and I think that it is appropriate that he do that. It is a positive reflection on this House that these types of tools are available to the minority to stymie the progress, and we appreciate the gentleman's ability to use those. But it would be important to have the facts be accurate, and the facts are that these administrative costs that are being discussed in this bill are a shift in what has been a double-dipping practice that has been used by States to draw down Federal dollars and then collect administrative costs as if the original Federal dollar had been generated in that State in the first place. This is not, as the gentleman has characterized, the Grinch or any other mean-spirited person taking treats from children or from their holiday stockings that have arrived a month and a half early.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's reference to the CBO numbers. We also have the CBO numbers. They are available on a bipartisan basis. The CBO numbers clearly show that total collections will continue to go up. $24.8 billion in 2006, $26 billion in 2010, $31.7 billion by 2015. The gentleman has referred to this provision as the most callous part of the deficit reduction package. I hope that everyone else on his team remembers that because you can only have one number one. You can only have one most egregious part.

So as we get into the discussions about Medicaid and food stamps and student loans and all the things that we heard about this morning when we were talking about the continuing resolution, let us remember that this one is the most egregious, that this one is the most callous because you can only have one number one. I know that this is nothing but the first salvo in a historic debate about the direction that this country is heading.

I agree with the gentleman that it is important that we go back to our districts and we talk about these plans, because the fact of the matter is we have a plan. And the fact of the matter is that you don't. The fact of the matter is that you can criticize all you want about where we have chosen to reform government, to find efficiencies, to better deliver services to the people who need them the most while you can go home and criticize the changes that we offer without having to defend your own plan.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

We do not have any additional speakers, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important opening to the grand debate that we are unveiling here this evening about the direction of entitlement spending and the direction of Federal spending in this Congress and for our Nation. We have heard an awful lot about the term ``cuts'' and we have seen the cute props and we have heard the first of what will be many metaphors of snatching food from the mouths of children and all kinds of heated rhetoric. But at the end of the day, the numbers don't lie. The numbers are that child support collections under this proposal continue to go up.

Do they go up as fast as the Democrats would like? Apparently not, judging by the rhetoric. But only in Washington and only in their rhetoric is that a cut. The bottom line is that this next fiscal year, 2006, it is $23.8 billion. By 2010, it is $26 billion. And by 2015, it is almost $32 billion. Under every arithmetic, old math, new math, poor school districts, wealthy school districts, all across America, those numbers are going up. Those numbers mean more money to those States for the important task of enforcing child support responsibilities by all noncustodial parents.

So despite the references to the smugness, despite the fact that we have been accused of being in the pockets of deadbeat dads, the numbers continue to climb for administrative costs. None of these even affect the actual program. They are defending the administration of the program instead of the outcome of that program, which is more money getting to those families, more fathers, more mothers who are noncustodial living up to their obligations. That is really what it ought to be about, is it not, the outcome? Not the administrative fees, that are going up anyway?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the rule has given the gentleman this opportunity for us to open the debate in this way. Unfortunately his rhetoric outpaces the facts. I would urge the Members to reject this proposal and allow us to move forward with reforming government.

With that, I would ask the Members to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, 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. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this is an historic evening, an evening when we have come together to truly chart the course for the Federal Government's spending over the next number of years.

House Resolution 560 provides for consideration of H.R. 4241, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is the first time since 1997 that such a measure has come this far. The rule provides 2 hours of debate and a motion to recommit with or without instructions.

As a member of both the Rules and the Budget Committee, I am pleased to bring this historic resolution to the floor for our consideration.

Mr. Speaker, most all Americans rely on the government to provide security for themselves and their families, for their Nation. After defense, though, expectations vary widely about what Americans expect out of their government. But those expectations, whatever they may be, they all are rooted in the common need, the common expectation that whatever government does, that it be done wisely, prudently, efficiently, without waste or abuse of their hard-earned tax dollars.

The congressional budget process is a chance to ensure that our government behaves in a fiscally responsible and responsive manner to provide opportunity and security for today and for future generations.

In my first term in Congress I was appointed to the Budget Committee. I was pleased that this assignment would afford me the opportunity to receive the full scope of all the programs that exist, all the agencies, all the departments that fall under the umbrella of the Federal Government. But I was shocked when I got on that committee to learn how little control Congress actually exerts over spending in many of these agencies and programs.

Discretionary spending, that portion of the budget that consumes all the sound and fury that a Congress can manufacture, makes up less than half of total spending, half of the total budget.

Mandatory spending, entitlement spending, that spending that is on autopilot, accounts for 54 percent of the total budget and, if left unchecked, in a decade will consume nearly two-thirds, or 62 percent, of total Federal spending.

I have been dismayed at how Congress has allowed its voice to become fainter and fainter when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars on entitlement programs. It is time that this Congress take responsibility for the entire spending picture. We cannot avoid the tough decisions. It is our job to set the priorities of government and then fund them appropriately. It is our job to practice thorough oversight of the programs and agencies that consume our tax dollars. We must find the waste, the fraud, the abuse in the programs and blaze a trail to smarter, more responsive government.

Anyone watching the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina would agree that government was neither smart nor responsive. The time has come for this House to reassert its role and take back control of both discretionary and mandatory spending.

This legislation is another step towards smarter and more confident government. The congressional budget resolution called for a reduction in discretionary spending; and for the first time since 1997, it included deficit reduction instructions to authorizing committees to find and achieve mandatory savings for a more accountable government. It does this by finding smarter ways to spend and by slowing the rate of growth in the Federal Government.

Eight different authorizing committees have worked hard to find these savings within their individual jurisdictions through regular order, through individual members practicing their individual expertise, through their individual interests on their authorizing committees. Regular order was used to develop this plan for a smarter government, and I want to commend those chairmen and all those committee members, not just the Budget Committee members, not just the Appropriations Committee members, but the entire House who participated in this process and, through their aggressive oversight, identified nearly $50 billion in inefficiencies.

I want to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), our budget chairman, and his ranking member and

all the members of the Committee on the Budget of the House for their hard work, for preparing the deficit reduction package.

I look forward to passing this reform bill and reaffirming sound oversight and fiscal accountability here in Washington.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before we get too deep into this debate, let us go ahead and straighten out three myths.

Myth number one is the myth of the cuts, because only in Washington and only in the other side's rhetoric is a reduction in the rate of increase considered a cut. When growth rates are going from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent or from 6.3 to 6 percent and programs are getting more dollars the next year than they got the year before, that is not a cut.

Myth number two, that it is mean. What could be mean about demanding that services to people who need them the most are administered effectively, wisely, and efficiently? Is it waste in programs that administer to our most needy and our most vulnerable, the worst kind of waste?

Do we not have a special obligation to root out those dollars that have been directed to the people who need them the most but are not finding their way there because of inefficiencies in our government?

And, thirdly, that this is somehow part of an overall scheme that is tied in with preventing tax increases. There are two separate packages moving. You have an opportunity, you have an opportunity to vote against keeping the tax rates where they are and allowing them to rise. You have an opportunity to do that. But you have a separate opportunity, through regular order, through the ordinary process, through all the individual committees, to also take a stand to correct and rein in mandatory spending that is out of control and is gobbling up the Federal budget. You have that opportunity.

Two separate votes. You can be for savings and still vote to let taxes go up on another day, but do not try to have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) to elaborate on these points.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just point out that the gentleman has two votes coming up, one where he can do something about the spending and one where he can make clear the position on either raising taxes or not raising taxes. There are two separate and distinct votes. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Blue Dogs are stuck in the dog box of their leadership. They need to get off of the porch and bring a plan to the table. The chairman of the Budget Committee testified before the Rules Committee, asking that a substitute be made in order. The 12-step plan was still stuck someplace else. The Blue Dogs were still on the porch. The Blue Dogs were still locked in the box. They did not come forward with an opportunity to present their own plan.

They are free to criticize ours. We are big boys and girls. We are going to stand by this plan, and we are going to move it forward because it is important that we back up what their rhetoric is, which is that mandatory and entitlement spending is eating up this budget and somebody has got to do something about it besides just bark.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my apologies for besmirching the reputation of the Blue Dogs. It is clear that their bark is still in place, though their bite is lacking.

Mr. Speaker, that was quite a performance, and I respect the gentleman's passion; but I do not respect the fact that he chose to personalize the debate, an important debate about the future of our Nation. I do not like the way that he characterized me; I do not like the way that he characterized the gentleman from Texas. It seems to me that the sensitivities about the reputation of the Blue Dogs is where the thin skin really lies.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is about the future and this organization has created the impression over a number of years of fiscal responsibility; and yet time after time after time when given the opportunity to truly do something about it, they just fade away. They just go back to the porch. Instead of taking the tough votes, instead of bringing real reform and making government work better so future generations of men and women and businesses and children and all aspects, instead of guaranteeing a bright future for all Americans, they just choose to talk about it.

The gentleman is right when he said that our younger generation is going to be most impacted by these fiscal decisions. They are. That is why we are here today to try to do something about it. They are here today to just talk about it. Where is their plan to rein in the overarching growth of Federal spending? What are they going to do about the fact that entitlement spending takes up over half of the budget and will soon take up two-thirds? Where was their plan about what they were going to do for these same women and children, as if the country was only made up of women and children, that benefit from these programs, what about all Americans? What were you going to do about this generation and future generations' retirement security? The same thing you were going to do about this, just talk about it, but not actually take the tough votes to do anything about securing their future.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I have not memorized all of Matthew, but I am pretty sure he did not like calling kids Nimrods. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, America's heart and America's wallets have been opened for those who have been so devastated on the gulf coast just as they were a year ago for those Floridians who suffered four storms. It is a tragic thing and we are very sorry for the loss and the continued suffering that goes on. There have been a number of things discussed this evening as part of the kickoff of this debate about being truly serious about reducing the size of our deficit.

I began by talking about the myths. All around America, the people who would be discussing what is going on here would have to find that something is odd about a budget that goes up 7 percent every year but is labeled a cut. They would find it an interesting juxtaposition that the only thing mean and ugly about what is going on in here has been the rhetoric. The action is to eliminate the waste from all of these areas, including FEMA. Including those areas.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge this House to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Putnam

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment addresses two issues, food stamps and Medicaid transformation grants. On the issue of food stamps, it ensures that recipients of noncash TANF benefits will continue to be categorically eligible for food stamps and it addresses high growth States with regard to Medicaid transformation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 560.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Thursday, November 17, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 520 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 520 is a rule providing for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2744, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006.

According to the rule, all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present for consideration the rule for the conference report for agriculture appropriations for fiscal year 2006. I would like to commend Chairman Bonilla, Chairman Lewis, and the entire Appropriations Committee for their hard work this year. The congressional budget is an important tool of Congress, allowing us to establish our priorities for the coming fiscal year.

The agriculture appropriations subcommittee has reported out a bill that provides important resources to ensure that our Nation's farmers and ranchers remain competitive in the 21st century. The legislation enhances our ability to safeguard our food supply and addresses the nutritional needs of children and the most disadvantaged in our country. The bill also works to maintain and build fiscal discipline.

In total, the bill provides $17.1 billion in discretionary resources. This level represents an increase of $258 million, only 1\1/2\ percent over the fiscal year 2005-enacted level.

The bill continues our commitment to protecting human health and safety. In an effort to combat harmful pests and disease that threaten American agriculture, the Food Safety and Inspection Service is increased by $20 million over last year for a total of $838 million, an increase of $127 million above the President's request. And APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, activities are funded at $7 million above last year for a total of $820 million.

I am pleased that the conference report fulfills our commitments to important food and nutrition programs. Child nutrition programs are funded at $12.7 billion, $879 million above last year and $245 million above the President's request. To provide quality nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children, the WIC program is funded at $5.3 billion, $22 million more than last year.

In addition, the conference report supports American farmers, ranchers, and rural areas. The Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses are funded at the President's request of $1 billion, allowing the continued delivery of farm and disaster programs. To unlock much- needed advances in agricultural research and allow American farmers to have the tools necessary to continue to produce a safe and wholesome, affordable food supply, the Agricultural Research Service is funded at $1.266 billion.

USDA's Conservation Observations are increased by $72 million over the President's request, bringing 2006 funding to $840 million, an increase over last year. This will allow farmers and ranchers to achieve important conservation and environment goals, recognizing that farmers and ranchers are the original environmentalists.

This appropriations bill is an example of how Congress can attain fiscal discipline and still fund our necessary programs. The conference report on H.R. 2744 funds programs over the President's budget request, increasing funding in strategic areas, while maintaining fiscal discipline. I am impressed with the work of the conferees, and I am certain the appropriations process this year will serve as a model of how we can achieve responsible and responsive funding simultaneously.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a congressional district in Florida that is among the top in the Nation in production of certain agricultural goods. And I want to personally thank Chairman Bonilla and Chairman Lewis and the agriculture appropriations subcommittee staff for their ongoing commitment to the needs of Florida's agriculture, which has been ravaged now by a number of hurricanes over the past 2 years and a number of invasive plants, pests, and diseases.

I particularly thank Chairman Bonilla for his understanding and diligence in fighting the spread of citrus canker in the groves of my State. I know that the people of Florida deeply appreciate the subcommittee's tireless efforts to assist our State's agriculture economy.

I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts comments and certainly share his concern about the need to deal with world hunger problems.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a gentleman who represents a group of people who are doing their own part to fight that. He represents the breadbasket of the world.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as always, the gentleman from Massachusetts' rapier wit is as sharp as ever, but in this case misdirected as his faults are with the underlying bill itself and not with the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the speakers on both sides of the aisle. I agree with them that Chairman Bonilla has led a very balanced process as we move agricultural policy in this country into the 21st century. It is a large appropriations bill. It covers a wide array of needs in this Nation, from WIC and child nutrition programs, to the conservation side and all that that entails in terms of making sure that we are not eroding our valuable topsoil, making sure that we have wildlife habitat, and making sure that environmentalists understand that farmers are the true stewards of that land. And frankly, at the root of the bill, the most important service, is to allow American farmers and ranchers to continue to grow the safest, most affordable, most abundant food supply and be able to feed not only our country but the rest of the world as well.

It is a real tribute that there is bipartisan support for this legislation to make sure that we are competitive in the 21st century, that we are compliant with our global trade agreements, that we are continuing to push ahead in fighting the war against hunger, making sure that we continue to fight the war against obesity, and allowing our farmers and ranchers to be competitive.

So it is a testament to the bill, and it is a testament to the authors of that bill on both sides of the aisle.

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. Chairman, the intent of Sec. 25 of H.R. 3824, the Relationship Between Section 7 Consultation and Incident Take Authorization Under Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 is to clarify that when regulations set forth under the Endangered Species Act conflict with regulations set forth under the Marine Mammal Protection Act during the review process for issuing dock permits, it is the regulations set forth under the Endangered Species Act that are the governing authority.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 469 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), 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. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 469 is a rule that provides for consideration of House Joint Resolution 68, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2006. This rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution. The rule provides one motion to recommit the joint resolution.

Additionally, the resolution provides that suspensions will be in order at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, October 6, 2005, and the Speaker or his designee shall consult the Minority Leader or her designee on any suspension considered under the rule.

Lastly, the rule provides that a motion to proceed pursuant to section 2908 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 shall be in order only if offered by the majority leader or his designee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the entire House Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle for sticking to the timetable they laid out at the start of this legislative session. In an impressive display of bipartisanship and just sheer hard work, the House passed all 11 appropriations bills prior to the July 4 District Work Period. Since July, the Senate has returned to us only the interior and legislative branch appropriations bills, which have each been signed into law by the President. Additionally, the Senate has passed six of its remaining 10 appropriations bills. These six are awaiting closure in conference. We are now just anticipating action from the Senate on those last four appropriations bills so we can move forward, finish the appropriations process, and avoid a cumbersome omnibus funding bill.

Unfortunately, the appropriations process within the two bodies has not been completed prior to the start of the new fiscal year which, of course, begins this October 1. We must institute a continuing resolution in order to allow the government to function through November 18, 2005, while we complete consideration of the remaining appropriations bills, waiting on the Senate to complete their final actions, and for the conference committees to do their work. This rule allows consideration of the imperative funding measure.

I am most impressed with the work of the Committee on Appropriations on this continuing resolution. Throughout the appropriations process, the committee has shown its commitment to the budget resolution and to fiscal responsibility. The committee has funded programs and activities at the lowest level of the House-passed level, the Senate-passed level, or the fiscal year 2005 current rate. For agencies for which the Senate has not passed a bill by the start of a new fiscal year, the funding rate is at the lower of the House-passed level, or the fiscal year 2005 current rate.

The legislation includes language prohibiting agencies from initiating or resuming programs or procurements not funded in the fiscal year 2005, and prohibits agencies from awarding new grants and certain other forms of assistance during the period of the CR, which, of course, is through November 18 of this year.

I again congratulate the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) and the entire committee for their hard work this year. I urge Members to support this rule and the underlying CR so that we can finish the appropriations process, move down the road to responsible funding for the needs of this Nation, and avoid a cumbersome omnibus funding bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I certainly agree that this debate about the budget and the appropriations process is always a debate about our future, and it is a debate about priorities. Clearly, we have had a shift in priorities since that budget resolution passed. As a State that was hit by four hurricanes last year and had the beginnings of Katrina come across our State this year, our hearts go out to our brothers and sisters on the gulf coast, and we recognize that this government has a commitment to help lift up those citizens on the gulf coast and, where appropriate, we have a Federal responsibility in the rebuilding and reconstruction process in Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama, and a lot of other places.

So I think that that reinforces the need for us to move ahead with this

continuing resolution and allow our appropriations process to work, instead of positioning ourselves to a situation where we end up with an omnibus bill that I do not think either one of us thinks is the appropriate way to go.

There is an opportunity here for us to reprioritize, using regular order, using the strength and talent that sits on our committees, and bringing about a measured approach to doing that. It is going to require offsets. The numbers that are coming out of there fluctuate wildly, and it is important that we have a handle on what those needs truly are. It is important that we recognize that had we not taken some of the steps that we have taken in the past, we would not have eliminated $100 billion off of the deficit in the last year. We would not have been in a position where revenues to the government would have actually been higher than they were as a result of the lower taxes and the growth in the economy that has come about as a result of that.

But that is a debate for another day. This is a debate about the continuing resolution and the need for us to make sure that the government does not shut down.

The House has done its work. I think we can all be very proud of our appropriators finishing their schedule before July 4, and now we are in a position, unfortunately, of being in a bit of a holding pattern, waiting on the Senate and our conference committees to do their work. But it is important for us to pass this rule and allow the CR to move ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I applaud the gentleman's bipartisan effort to find ways to pay for these unanticipated expenses that we have come across, and I wish him the best in that effort. I think it is important that we all recognize on both sides of the aisle that offsets are going to be necessary and that we do have to reprioritize.

As the gentleman knows, the President submitted a list through the regular budget process of 150 programs to cut or eliminate earlier this year, and some of them received some attention and others received more attention than others. It is certainly a difficult proposition in this town to eliminate any program, but the President led early this year with that thought in mind and he had mixed success.

Again, recognizing the importance of your bipartisan effort and recognizing the facts that we are going to have to have these offsets, this bill, this rule that we are here to consider essentially keeps the government from shutting down while we have that debate. It appears that there is genuine broad support for the CR and for the rule, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for her work on the Rules Committee and what is essentially a broad commitment that we have to have this CR through November 18. Frankly, it is not for lack of effort on the House side. Both parties have a lot of reasons to be proud of the efforts of our appropriators and the entire House. We had a Herculean effort this summer to move these bills on schedule, move them out before July 4th, and because of Supreme Court nominations and everything else obviously the Senate has had other issues on their agenda, and we are in a holding pattern on the appropriations. Nobody wants to see the government shut down after Saturday, so it is important that we move this rule, move the underlying CR, and allow the regular order, the talent and skills that exist within this House, to work their magic as we deal with these unanticipated effects from two gulf storms, and we are not even finished with hurricane season yet.

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. Speaker, I rise today to draw the House of Representative's attention to September 22 as Elephant Appreciation Day, a day designated to pay tribute to one of the most iconic members of the animal kingdom.

Elephants have always generated a special and unique affection from young and old alike. One need only ask the millions of Americans who visit zoos and circuses each year to learn that for most, the elephants are by far the biggest attraction, both figuratively and literally.

While we admire their strength, we also recognize their vulnerability as highly endangered species, challenged by fragmented habitats and scarce resources in their natural range. Asian elephants, in particular, have had a long, rich history living and working with humans, however, today there are fewer than 35,000 remaining in the world. Although ivory poaching is a factor in Asia, the primary threat to Asian elephants is the loss of habitat and the resulting conflicts with an ever-expanding human population. Most experts agree that the future survival of this species relies on several factors: habitat preservation, public conservation education and successful captive breeding.

Today I would like to talk about one of the success stories in the fight to save the Asian elephant--one which takes place right in my backyard in Polk County, FL--home to the largest and most genetically diverse population of Asian elephants in North America.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the founding of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant Conservation or CEC. The Ringling Bros. CEC is a state of the art facility dedicated to the research, reproduction and retirement of Asian elephants and reflects the commitment and stewardship of Ringling Bros. and the Feld family to the future survival of this magnificent species.

Located on over 200 acres of central Florida wilderness, the Ringling Bros. CEC is home to dozens of Asian elephants, as well as the most successful breeding program outside of Asia. With 18 young elephants born in the past decade, the Ringling Bros. program accounts for over 40 percent of Asian elephant births in North America during this same time period.

In addition, the CEC is a focal point for researchers from around the world who come for the unique opportunity to study elephant reproductive and behavioral science in a hands-on setting. Information gleaned from our Florida herd is applied to wild and managed populations in Asia in an effort to promote better conservation, preservation and husbandry.

Ringling Bros.'s commitment to conservation and the future of this beloved circus icon goes beyond its work at the CEC. Ringling Bros. is also committed to educating its patrons about the challenges facing Asian elephants in the wild and the need to support conservation efforts. In addition, Ringling Bros. is an active member of the International Elephant Foundation, providing financial support and technical, hands on expertise. Ringling Bros.'s elephant managers and veterinarians have participated in workshops and symposia in Thailand, India and Sumatra and have worked side by side with their Asian counterparts in elephant camps and wildlife parks.

According to Jack Hanna, director emeritus of the Columbus Zoo, ``[a] concerted effort to save the Asian elephant is imperative. Zoos are doing their best with the resources they have, but most can't afford to maintain a large breeding group of elephants. The Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant Conservation is dedicated to saving the Asian elephant and has both the resources and the commitment to succeed.''

Thanks to this commitment, Elephant Appreciation Day of 2005 finds the fate of the world's Asian elephants a little more secure. I urge my colleagues to continue their efforts in support of this trend through continued funding for the Asian and African Elephant Conservation Acts.

I want to congratulate Kenneth Feld and Ringling Bros. on the occasion of the 10 anniversary of the Center for Elephant Conservation and I invite my colleagues to come and visit this unique and inspiring facility.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me time.

I thank the chairman for agreeing to this colloquy in order to shine a light on an unfortunate recurring situation in some Head Start agencies.

Stories of corrupt agencies have been surfacing recently all over the Nation, complete with allegations of administrators' misconduct with Federal funds and financial conflicts of interest between board members and vendors.

Accountability is a critical component of this reauthorization, and I thank the chairman for his commitment for addressing it.

On February 10 of this year, I introduced H.R. 778, the Head Start Accountability Act of 2005, to address the misuse and abuse of Federal funds occurring in an agency in my district as well as others. The Polk County Opportunity Council has had a decade-long history in fundamental flaws in both operations and management. PCOC has displayed an obvious lack of internal controls and, worse, a blatant disregard for its fiduciary responsibilities associated with proper stewardship of Federal grant funds.

There is documented evidence that this organization has misused Federal dollars and made several excessive and unnecessary expenditures, including the approval of $150,000 for repairs to a parking lot, repairs that had a quoted cost of just $20,000.

They also obtained $90,000 in Federal funds to repair some Head Start facilities reportedly damaged in last summer's hurricanes that tore through Florida. However, their insurance inspection determined that the facilities had no damage. I could go on and on listing examples of financial mismanagement at this agency.

I introduced the Head Start Accountability Act to immediately address the seemingly unending pattern that was developing in that agency and similar organizations. H.R. 778's major provisions would address the most glaring improprieties. Among the provisions in H.R. 778, the bill calls for automatic recompetition of all Federal Head Start Federal grants every 5 years, establishes new board requirements, adds tighter fiscal control requirements at the local level.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for recognizing the importance of these provisions and including the key principles in this reauthorization. Under his leadership, we are finally moving toward financial accountability. I look forward to working with my colleague in the future toward further refinement of these accountability measures.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his dedication to improving the Head Start program.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 387 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 387 is a closed rule that 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 waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 387 also provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act. The legislation passed the House of Representatives yesterday by a majority vote of 240 to 186, but did not garner the necessary two-thirds vote to pass under suspension of the rules.

Over the past 25 years, U.S.-China trade has risen from $5 billion to $231 billion, and China is now our third largest trading partner. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization by notifying the WTO they had formally ratified the WTO agreements. However, a report released in December of 2004 by the U.S. Trade Representative stated that while China has worked hard to comply with its WTO commitments, they have not always been satisfactory.

Major areas of concern identified in the report included intellectual property rights, agricultural services, industrial policies, trading rights and distribution, and transparency of trade laws. This legislation addresses these concerns by creating concrete mechanisms to ensure that China abides by its previous commitments and that we renew our efforts to level the playing field for American manufacturers competing against subsidized Chinese goods.

Specifically, the bill would establish a monitoring system to track China's compliance with its trade obligations on intellectual property rights, market access for U.S. goods, services, and agriculture, and accounting of Chinese subsidies so that we open it up and have that transparency that has been lacking to date. The system would require that the President issue semiannual reports to Congress on China's progress in meeting these commitments.

Mr. Speaker, our domestic goods manufacturers are currently at a disadvantage because they are forced to compete with imported goods subsidized by foreign governments or public entities that can be sold at lower prices. H.R. 3283 would apply U.S. countervailing duty law to exports from nonmarket economies, such as China, to give our manufacturers the tools they need here in America to compete with nonmarket economies in those countries.

The bill also tightens the rules on antidumping duties by requiring cash deposits, and suspending for 3 years the availability of bonds for new shippers in antidumping cases in order to prevent those shippers from defaulting on their obligations.

H.R. 3283 increases funding for the U.S. Trade Representative to improve the monitoring and enforcement of U.S. trade agreements, something that we hear about an awful lot on this floor, the lack of enforcement of prior trade agreements. This directs the trade representative to make that a priority.

The bill also authorizes funding for the U.S. International Trade Commission and requires the commission to conduct a comprehensive study on the sensitivity of U.S. trade and jobs to current policies.

Mr. Speaker, in today's global marketplace, it is vital that trade obligations be enforced and that our manufacturers and producers be allowed to fairly compete in our markets here at home and those abroad. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

One of the items that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) mentioned that I agree wholeheartedly with is the rise of China is one of the most significant developments of the 21st century, and that is why it is so critically important that we make sure that the trade agreements that exist

between our country and theirs are enforced and are monitored. That is what this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a man from a heavy industry and manufacturing State who understands well the challenges imposed by the lack of enforcement of these agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just take one moment to correct something that was said by my friend from Massachusetts about this week being filled with renaming of post offices. We have also managed to find time this week to pass the first comprehensive postal reform in years. There is the strong likelihood of at least a couple of appropriations conference reports; the Central American Free Trade Agreement; a highway conference report; an energy conference report; and a bill to get strict with China about enforcing our trade agreements.

The gentlewoman from New York is correct. This bill was up for a vote yesterday on the suspension calendar. Under House rules it requires a two-thirds vote to be passed. It garnered 240 votes, shy of two-thirds, but a clear majority, with 19 Democrats also believing that it was important to enforce trade agreements with China. It was our mistake, apparently, to believe that there would be even broader bipartisan support, to believe that there would be more than 19 Democrats who would want to enforce our trade agreements with China. So it is back today where it requires a majority vote to pass. So for the second day, we will have an opportunity to devote the time and resources to debate the need for our country to enforce trade agreements with China; to keep our commitments that have been negotiated and passed in the Congress; to make sure that the resources are in the Department of Commerce and the resources are in the ITC, the International Trade Commission, and the resources are in the Trade Representative's Office to make sure that we are monitoring the compliance of the Chinese Government with preexisting laws, with preexisting trade agreements so that our manufacturers, our employers, our jobs in America do not suffer. That is why we are back here today.

I am happy to yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), another leader on this issue.

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the figs and the gigs, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman on the other side of the aisle, for whom I have a great deal of respect, from New Jersey represents a major industrial State, lots of manufacturers. I would just say that this is clearly a bill that is more than a fig leaf. Application of U.S. countervailing duty law to exports from nonmarket economies is more than an empty gesture: $6 million per year in additional money to USTR beyond the President's request, up to $45 million and earmarked for the General Counsel, Office of Monitoring and Compliance; the suspension for 3 years of bonding authority; increased teeth, increased enforcement, increased compliance to make the Chinese follow the law and agreements that we have already signed and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the sponsor of this legislation, and someone who has worked for years very diligently on all the issues relating to China.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As the gentleman is aware, House rules allow for the motion to recommit and sets aside time for debate on the Democratic alternative to the legislation that we are considering here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a huge week for the Congress, a big week for the House of Representatives. We are passing out major postal reform for the first time

in years, a highway bill that has been in the making for over 2 Congresses now, an energy conference report that has also been in the making for over 2 Congresses now; the opportunity to have at least one and perhaps as many as three appropriations conference reports behind us as we enter the August district work period; and a Central American Free Trade Agreement, as well as a bill that gets tough with China, that finally holds our administration's feet and the feet of, either party's feet to the fire, and requires that they monitor and enforce the existing trade agreements that have been enacted by this Congress.

This bill has been called a smoke screen, it has been called a fig leaf, it has been called a number of demeaning terms. But at the end of the day, this is a real worthwhile enforcement tool that gives Members the opportunity to show the folks back home where they are on fair level trade with China.

The application of U.S. countervailing duty law on nonmarket economies is not an empty gesture.

A system of comprehensive monitoring of Chinese compliance with their trade obligations on intellectual property rights; market access for our American goods, services, and agriculture; an accounting of the Chinese subsidies; increased transparency so that we know what the government ownership is, we know what they are subsidizing, we know how much. Those are more than fig leaves, Mr. Speaker.

It requires reporting by Treasury to define the currency manipulation and to analyze the effect of what the Chinese did with their new exchange rate mechanism this week. That is not a smoke screen.

A $6 million a year increase above the President's request, up to almost $45 million a year for the general counsel and an office of monitoring and compliance. That is not an empty promise. That is a real meaningful resource to improve our ability to track the Chinese subsidy and the potential manipulation of the global marketplace that is out of compliance with our trade agreements.

The suspension for 3 years of the availability of bonds for new shippers in antidumping cases. Meaningful, meaningful reform. And funding for the ITC and an ITC report on the sensitivity of U.S. trade and jobs to the currency policy, something that on a bipartisan basis we have heard a great deal of angst about from Members of Congress. That is a reflection of what is going on in the countryside that there are genuine fears out there about currency manipulation. This bill gives us an opportunity to get our arms around how extensive that is and what effect the reforms and the step forward the Chinese Government made this week will have on our economy and our employment base.

This is an outstanding bill, Mr. Speaker. We have debated it now, this is the second day, first on the suspension calendar, admittedly with the belief that it would garner two-thirds support from this Chamber in the belief that everyone would share in the need to crack down on Chinese abuse of trade agreements, that everyone would agree that we need to put as many tools in the tool kit as possible to enforce and monitor their compliance, to bring about that transparency so that the world community can see what is going on, can see where there are distortions, can see where there is manipulation; and now it is back today for a straight up-or-down vote.

Yesterday, it got 240 votes. Today, I hope it gets even more. Yesterday there were 19 Democrats who supported it. There were five Republicans who opposed it. It is a bipartisan effort, bipartisan angst, bipartisan support. I urge the Members to pass the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 345 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 345 provides that suspensions will be in order at any time on this legislative day. The resolution also provides that the Speaker or his designee shall consult with the minority leader, or her designee, on any suspension considered under the rule. Additionally, the rule provides that it shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment of the House and Senate during the month of July.

Mr. Speaker, the leadership of this House set out a positive and aggressive legislative plan for this week on behalf of the American people. The goal of this plan has been to pass a number of bills that will allow for USAID to foreign nations, transportation and infrastructure improvements for our Nation, improved housing for those in need, and important funding for executive agencies and our judiciary along with the District of Columbia.

I want to particularly commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and his Committee on Appropriations and the staff for sticking to the time table that they laid out at the start of this session. As of today, the House has passed all 11 appropriations bills prior to the July 4 district work period. And I note that the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations is also on the floor and we certainly appreciate the work that he and his committee members and staff have also put into that. It is a tremendous accomplishment that the House has completed its appropriations work prior to the July 4 work period.

We now await action from the Senate so that we may finish the appropriations process and avoid a cumbersome omnibus funding bill at the end of the year.

This week we have spirited debate, particularly on the previous two appropriations bills, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill and Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.

I understand that Members on both sides of the aisle have differing viewpoints on how to address these issues, and we have had the opportunity to hear that spirited debate from both sides of the aisle on all of these issues. But some of this legislation that also needs to be considered this week has broad support among Members of both the majority and minority. In an attempt to make sure that this important work is completed by the end of this legislative week, we are here today

to pass a rule to provide a process for consideration of these bills under rules that would require them to pass by a two-thirds majority. This will allow us to consider items in a timely manner and ensure that last minute issues are resolved prior to adjournment for the Fourth of July work period.

This balanced rule provides the minority with the ability to consult with the Speaker on any suspension bill offered, ensuring that input and views are duly considered before any legislation considered under the rule is brought to the floor.

I am proud of the accomplishments of this House over the last weeks and months. I now ask my colleagues to support this rule so that we may continue the work of the American people in a timely fashion this evening. Completing consideration of these suspensions ensures that Congress may accomplish as much as possible before we return to work in our home States and districts and observe our Nation's birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this balanced rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments and certainly understand the importance that she has placed on us rectifying the situation with regard to veterans funding and as it relates to highway spending.

I am glad that the House by unanimous consent, before we took this rule up, adopted the extension of the existing highway authorization. So I am glad we have taken that off the table. It is precisely the type of immediate action that we need to take before we go home for the district work period.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman attempted to give his version of the history. The history speaks for itself.

Concurrent receipts is an issue that was never brought to the floor under the Democratic majority. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a champion for veterans, filed that bill year after year after year for over a decade. It did not get a hearing until the Republicans took over. It was the Republican majority that passed it. It is under Republican leadership that funding per veteran has nearly doubled.

Where the rubber meets the road, as the gentleman put it, has been in funding and support for America's soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and our veterans; and it is unfortunate that we had this actuarial model problem, but the fact of the matter is this rule allows us to fix it tonight. I hope my colleagues will support that rule. Because of that fact, it is freeing up those funds for our veterans to correct this problem. It is also allowing us to move forward on other issues before we go home for the 4th of July work period.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment, as the gentleman is aware, that this rule allows us to move that funding as expeditiously as possible. It requires a two-thirds vote from the House to move forward. I am hopeful that he and the rest of his side will support us on this rule so that we can get that fix through. We can then restore the full funding to the veterans that they require.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from New York for pointing out the flaws in the argument. If we pass the $975 million tonight, the Senate can take it up tomorrow. The relief is there immediately. It is not a game of political one-upsmanship or the Polk County fair where we have this bidding contest going on.

The $975 million is out there before the July 4 break. It will be on the Senate's desk for them to take up. That is the responsible approach for this House to adopt at this point in the week as we continue to work through all of our avenues of support to get all of this assistance and help and rehabilitation to the veterans in need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman continues to say this is a partisan issue. I would venture to agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh): the vote on this will be anything but partisan. I would venture to say that the support for restoring the $975 million mistake that the VA made will be a very broad, bipartisan, nonpartisan vote because I cannot imagine that anybody would stand in the way of that money finding its way into the veterans' hands, and the medical clinics and hospitals that so desperately need it.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has identified the need as being $1.5 billion. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) has identified the need as being $3 billion. The VA and the administration has said it is $975 million. If we as a House pass that $975 million, get it into the hands of the people who need it, if we find between now and the end of the fiscal year, because that is the number that has been stated that is needed for the remainder of the fiscal year, but we will be back here in a week, and if we find that more is needed, without question it would be given again on a broad bipartisan vote.

But we believe that the correct number based on the new actuarial study, based on the request of the Secretary, based on the request of the administration is $975 million. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) believes it is $3 billion, but she is only willing to put half of that up by asking for $1.5 billion. We are willing to fund all that we believe the VA has requested to get them through the remainder of this fiscal year. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of huge importance to all of our veterans. I think that all of us on a broad bipartisan basis should pass this rule which allows us to get this money to them.

I want to correct another issue that continues to be repeated by the other side of the aisle. The Senate has not passed a penny for the veterans. It has been reported out of their committee. What we are doing here tonight allows the entire House to act on this appropriations request and get it over there to the Senate as quickly as possible.

As usual, we are ahead of the Senate on this issue, and we are acting as quickly as possible to get them the request the administration has made for the remainder of the fiscal year. It has not been taken up by the Senate. It has not passed out of the Senate, it has only come out of committee. We have put this thing on the fast track to get veterans the help they need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is a champion for veterans and has been for years, and I do not take anything away from him on that. But the fact of the matter is that for the last 10 years, veterans funding per veteran has doubled under Republican leadership. The funding overall has continued to grow. It has grown, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) pointed out, at the highest rate of any agency in the government. As I said earlier, the vote on this issue will not be a partisan one. Every Member is committed to move this funding to the veterans as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of closing, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), distinguished chairman of the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations; who has been a champion for veterans funding, who has been there year in and year out. He shepherded, along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and other Members of this House, the first concurrent receipt bill in the history of this country, double-digit funding increases for veterans, a doubling of funding for veterans over the last decade, a real champion for the veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 331 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 purpose of debate only.

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 331 is a structured rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 2475, authorizing appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System.

I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for its consideration. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence modified by the amendment printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted and shall be considered as read.

It makes in order an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) or her designee which shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, and all points of order against the amendment are waived.

The rule provides for a motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present for consideration the rule for the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006. I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and his hard-working ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), for their excellent work on this legislation. More than any other committee in the Congress, we rely on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to do work that we have confidence in and that is accurate and honest. The committee is the eyes and ears of this Congress in the intelligence community. We depend on them to be aware of what the rest of the world and our own community is up to. We put our faith in them to practice oversight and to produce a legislative product that addresses the needs of our intelligence community, and therefore our Nation.

The committee does an outstanding job of working on a bipartisan basis to provide for our men and women who are fighting the war on terror on a variety of fronts.

I want to take a moment to salute those men and women who are working around the globe in a variety of capacities doing so much in a quiet, discreet way for our security and liberty. Linguists, analysts, case officers, mathematicians, and engineers, some of the brightest minds that our Nation produces, work in the intelligence community taking, in many cases, an option that is not as generous as the private sector may be if they were to put that intellect and those talents and skills into some other capacity in the private sector.

But they do it as a labor of love, as a part of public service identical to that which calls men and women into uniform in the armed services and which calls men and women into our firefighter and police and other first responding capacities. No differently than those uniformed members, the men and women in our intelligence community throughout the world are performing a huge public service for which we can never show enough gratitude and appreciation.

The Intelligence Committee has reported out a bill that continues the House's commitment to the global war on terrorism and to ensuring that intelligence resources are directed in a balanced way toward threats to our national security. This legislation authorizes more than last year's appropriated amount and more than the President's request to continue to fight the war on terror.

The bill does an effective job of balancing our intelligence resources and strengthening human intelligence gathering by increasing the number of case officers and training and support infrastructure. A long-term counterterrorism program is established to reduce the dependence on supplemental appropriations. Additionally, it authorizes the full amount of funds expected for heightened operations for counterterrorism operations and the war in Iraq.

H.R. 2475 enhances the analytic workforce by providing additional linguists and analysts as well as improved training and tools. Furthermore, the bill continues to invest in technical programs, funding systems end to end, investing in R&D and increased use of signature intelligence, and reflects the results of a comprehensive survey to review and rationalize technical collection programs.

For the first time, the Intelligence Authorization Act funds the new Office of the Director of National Intelligence and allows for increased positions. The National Counterterrorism Center is enhanced through improved information sharing activities and collaboration provisions. The bill improves physical and technical infrastructure of intelligence agencies with new facilities.

This authorization bill is a perfect example of how Congress can achieve a bipartisan product that meets the needs of our Nation. Again, I thank Chairman Hoekstra, Ranking Member Harman, and the members of the committee for their admirable work. I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) as it relates to these issues. It reflects a legitimate disagreement over the direction that this investigation should take, whether it should be based in the legislative branch or based in the executive branch or some combination, which has been the history.

In fact, here in our own Congress, the Senate has had eight hearings on detainee abuse, and three on Abu Ghraib specifically. General Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs; the Chief of Staff of the Army; the Secretary of Defense; and the Acting Secretary of the Army have all conducted independent reviews. There are 12 other Department of Defense reviews that have occurred, and the House Committee on Armed Services in this body has held three hearings and numerous briefings.

The legislative branch has been diligent in their oversight responsibility. And I appreciate that there are differences on this, but I particularly appreciate the way that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have handled this. Unlike in the Senate where the detainee abuse was equated with the regime of Pol Pot and Hitler and Stalin, there is a measured approach to disagreement in this Chamber, and I think that that is the responsible approach, unlike the direction that the Senate has gone. To equate Guantanamo Bay with regimes that murdered millions of people is absurd, and it is dangerous, and it gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

As the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services in this body pointed out, detainees in Guantanamo are provided their own prayer rugs. If that were done in the public school system, it would be against the law. They are called to prayer five times a day. If that were done on the average high school intercom system, it would be a violation of the law. They are fed three nutritious meals per day at an average of $12 per detainee per day. If we multiplied what we spend on the school lunch program times three meals, they would be receiving less than a detainee in Guantanamo Bay.

And because of the ongoing judicial review that our government is engaged in with those detainees, at the end of that process, 234 detainees so far have been released from Guantanamo. And to show their great gratitude, at least a dozen of them have been identified as returning to the fight against American servicemen and -women.

I think that it is important that we keep those facts in mind, as well, as we move through this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Unquestionably, Congress's responsibility to properly oversee the activities of the entire Federal Government is preeminent, and that is why I am proud that, under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), they have had hearings. In the Senate they have had hearings. And today, as we speak, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also has an oversight subcommittee devoted to investigating all of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the distinguished chairman of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Perhaps we should remind the gentleman of some of the 545 people who are being detained in Guantanamo; 545, by the way, is fewer people than are in my county's jail on a Saturday night.

But of those 545 people who killed innocent women and children, they included a detainee named Katani who was stopped before he could board one of the planes used to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, or taking care of Osama bin Laden's body guards, other members of al Qaeda and other terrorist networks and members of the Taliban. These are not your average, run-of-the-mill pick-pockets and thieves. They are hardened terrorists who have pledged everything to destroy American service men and women, to come into our homeland and wreak havoc and cause mayhem and cause death and destruction within these borders of the United States of America. They are being monitored. They are under ongoing judicial review. The eyes of the world, as this debate has evidenced, are on Guantanamo.

These are individuals who represent the very worst in our global society who would do anything to bring us harm. Yet we seem to lose all of that perspective in this very dramatic, theatrical debate that began in the Senate when there was an equation of Guantanamo with the regimes of Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot which resulted in the torture and mutilation and death of millions of human beings. And for this similar equation to be made on the House floor that we, in our activities in Guantanamo, are even remotely close to those regimes is out of bounds.

There have been numerous Department of Defense investigations into detainee abuse, numerous House Committee on Armed Services hearings on detainee abuse, Senate committee hearings on detainee abuse, and ongoing Intelligence subcommittee reviews of what is going on there.

It is important that we step back and understand that this is an intelligence authorization bill that gives our men and women the tools they need to fight people around the world that we would not invite over for dinner; people who would do everything in their power to bring down our society, our form of government, our cloak of safety. Let us keep those things in mind when we go forward with this debate about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Perhaps the gentleman, out of his concern for torture, would read into the Record the similar treatments, the abuse, the torture, the behavior shown Jessica Lynch. Perhaps the gentleman would also read into the Record the actions of the gentlemen who boarded American airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Perhaps, out of his sense of concern about torture, he would enter into the Record transcripts and videos of the beheadings that have been taking place in Iraq. Perhaps the gentleman, out of his sense of concern about torture, would cover those bad apples, those bad actors, and the actions that are being taken against them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the seeker of that truth, the chairman of the oversight subcommittee tasked with looking into alleged abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren.)

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is absolutely right when she says we are better than them. She is absolutely right when she says we are not equal to them. I hope she shares that thought with the senior Senator from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a vibrant, robust debate and a good solid beginning of the undeniable debate that will follow on the underlying bill.

In case you missed it from the debate over the rule, there is a lot more to this rule than just Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. This is an important rule that allows us to consider the intelligence authorization bill that gives our men and women around the world the tools and skill and support they need to win the war against terrorism on our behalf, important new assets in terms of technical capabilities, and a tremendous investment in the most important piece that we have in intelligence, which is those hardworking men and women who were called to public service.

This is a fair rule. It allows for a great deal more consideration of these issues that we have already begun to discuss in terms of detainees and the role of American intelligence in our society and the tools that they need around the world. I encourage everyone to support it and to support the underlying bill.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 331--Rule for H.R. 2475 Intelligence

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006

``In the resolution strike ``and (3)'' and insert the

following:

``(3) the amendment printed in Section 2 of this resolution

if offered by Representative Waxman of California or a

designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any

point of order or demand for division of the question, shall

not be subject to amendment, shall be considered as read, and

shall be separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (4)

Sec. 2. The amendment by Representative Waxman referred to

in Section 1 is as follows:

Amendment to H.R. 2475, As Reported Offered by Mr. Waxman of California

At the end, add the following new title:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.