Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 108 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 108.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 108 provides for the consideration of Senate bill S. 352, the DTV Delay Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clause 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to commit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, under current law, all full-power TV stations will stop their analog broadcasts on February 17, 2009, and broadcast only digital signals. That means on February 18, millions of American households that have an older television and have not obtained an analog-to-digital TV converter box will suddenly have a blank TV.

Survey data released by the Nielsen Company reveals that as of January 2009, 6.5 million American households were completely unprepared for transition to digital TV, meaning every TV in their home will be blank on February 18.

And for a host of reasons, the Federal Government's efforts to help people buy the necessary converters--a disproportionate number of whom who are seniors, low-income households, and those in rural areas--have been insufficient.

Madam Speaker, too many Americans are at risk for losing their television service, and we need a one-time delay to get ready for the digital TV transition. The bill before us today, S. 352, the DTV Delay Act, is very simple. It postpones the date of analog-to-digital television transition for 115 days from February 17, 2009, to June 12, 2009. This will provide additional time to get coupons for the digital TV converter boxes to millions of American households that are at risk of being without television service.

This bill unanimously passed the Senate despite being unfortunately blocked by the House Republicans last week. It was supported by the Obama administration, the FCC commissioners and has been endorsed by numerous groups, including the AARP, Consumers Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, the National Emergency Number Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Association of Broadcasters, AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, Univision, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC.

Madam Speaker, I would close by adding that this has not been an ideal transition to digital television, and this is hardly a perfect solution to the problem. But make no mistake, without this critical delay, millions of Americans may no longer be able to watch their television on February 18; and punishing consumers is surely not the way we fix this problem.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 40) amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require each standing committee to hold periodic hearings on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in Government programs which that committee may authorize, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 40.

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

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, these are tough times for our country. The United States is facing an economic disaster unlike anything we have seen since the Great Depression.

In the coming weeks, there will surely be differences of opinion as to how to best address the ailments of our Nation. But one thing is certain: Now, more than ever, it is time to ensure that government spends the taxpayers' money wisely.

For the first 6 years of the Bush administration, there was virtually no oversight by the Republican-led Congress. This led to rampant fraud and abuse, and billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars that were squandered by the administration, particularly regarding Iraq reconstruction and the response to Katrina.

Beginning in January of 2007, the Democratic Congress turned a new page and took numerous steps to begin changing the way we do business by restoring accountability and oversight. House Resolution 40, introduced by my very good friend and fellow Blue Dog colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), and myself, simply adds another layer to the rigorous oversight measures that we have already established.

This resolution amends the House rules to require each standing committee to hold at least three hearings per year on waste, fraud and abuse under each respective committee's jurisdiction. It requires a hearing in the event that an agency's auditor issues a disclaimer that the agency's financial statements are not in order. It also requires a hearing if an agency under that respective committee's jurisdiction has a program deemed by the GAO to be at high risk for waste, fraud and abuse.

Mr. Speaker, at the request of my friends on the other side of the aisle, there are two other stipulations. First, that the resolution shall be considered in light of existing House rules governing the conduct of committee hearings, including hearings held in executive session and the treatment of executive session materials; and, second, to require that committee activities reports identify the hearings held under the resolution.

Friends, plain and simple, it is now time to audit America's books. This resolution will add another level of accountability by shining light on the most egregious cases of government waste.

I would add, Mr. Speaker, that I am very encouraged by President- elect Obama's statements regarding his intent to pore through the budget line-by-line to eliminate wasteful spending. However, while I take the President-elect at his word, this resolution demonstrates that this Democratic Congress will not turn a blind eye to government waste simply because there is now a Democratic administration. Free passes are over, and we must build upon increased oversight and accountability efforts.

We have an opportunity to reinvent government and adhere to the fiscal accountability measures that Blue Dogs have long advocated. This will require tough decisions. But given these challenging economic times, cutting out waste, fraud and abuse must be among our top priorities in this Congress. All this requires is some bureaucratic soul-searching.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join the Blue Dogs in this quest.

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

I thank my colleague and friend for yielding and for his thoughtful suggestions.

In fact, yes, the Committee on House Administration is covered under this resolution, and the other measures, as you have indicated, have already been incorporated as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the author of the measure.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Tanner to insert an item into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, my very good friend, Mr. Kind.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the thoughtful words of both our previous two speakers. I think their suggestions are very well-taken.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New

York, the chairman of the Government Oversight Committee, Mr. Towns.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois, a leader in the effort to bring fiscal responsibility back to this institution, Ms. Bean.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Childers).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I very much appreciate the gentleman's request. I think we have enough time for the concluding speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am also prepared to close, so I will allow the gentleman to close.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to conclude my remarks by simply saying this:

As we know all too well, despite the Blue Dog Coalition's best efforts and the efforts of many other efforts on both sides of the aisle in this Chamber, cutting spending is never easy, but ladies and gentlemen, enough is enough. It is high time that we audit America's books. It is a moral imperative that we stop spending taxpayer dollars with reckless abandon and start making tough decisions, because the choices we make today will impact what we will be able to do to provide for our children and for our grandchildren tomorrow.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the 110th Congress, the new Democratic majority reinstated the proven PAYGO rules that were abandoned by President Bush and the then-Republican Congress as an important first step in ending reckless spending and getting our country back on track fiscally.

I am proud to say that the House rules package for the 111th Congress maintains the Democratic commitment that government should live within its means--just as every family across America must live within its own budget.

While the House of Representatives consistently adheres to the PAYGO rules, the fact remains that these are tough times for our country economically and financially.

Millions of American families' jobs and livelihoods are at risk and we have the responsibility to react in a timely and efficient manner.

As such, Blue Dogs have worked to include an emergency exception to the House PAYGO rules, similar to the emergency provisions used throughout the 1990s, so that Congress has the flexibility it needs to respond to extraordinary circumstances.

Let me be clear: this is not just simply a way around PAYGO. This can only be used in the event of true, defined emergencies such as war, a response to an act of terrorism, a natural disaster, or even the current economic crisis.

What is profoundly difficult in all this is that just 8 years ago, President Bush inherited--and squandered--a projected $5.6 trillion surplus from President Clinton.

Had President Bush not abandoned the Blue Dog principles of fiscal responsibility that we have long preached, the projected $5.6 trillion dollar surplus would have been available for us to respond to the economic crisis in a swift and effective manner, without having to ask foreign nations such as China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to pay our bills.

In spite of our Nation's current ailments, one thing is for certain. PAYGO is and must continue to be our guiding principle. We should not be in the economic and fiscal situation that we are today, and it's high time we start doing the right thing by paying for what this country buys.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly condemn attacks against Israel in recent weeks. I deeply regret the loss of innocent civilian life in Israel and Gaza and urge Hamas, for the sake of its own people and those in the region, to immediately cease the attacks and agree to a lasting truce with its democratic neighbor.

As our strongest ally in the Middle East, I believe Israel has the right to defend its citizens from the constant barrage of Hamas rocket attacks from inside Gaza. For too long, Hamas has used terrorism against Israel to destabilize the region and prevent peace for the people of Israel and the Palestinian territories. As long as Hamas continues to attack

innocent Israelis and use ordinary Palestinians as human shields, I will continue to support Israel's right to self-defense and its stated goal of preventing Hamas from firing rockets into Israel.

I remain hopeful that the United States and its allies can help bring a sustainable ceasefire to the region through diplomacy and create the conditions necessary for a durable peace.

Madam Speaker, I along with Congressman Costa rise today to commemorate the 75th anniversary of E. & J. Gallo Winery, a historic company that embodies California's agricultural prestige. Over the last 75 years, E. & J. Gallo Winery has transformed the winemaking industry in the United States and has made significant contributions to the economic strength and vitality of California.

Following the Prohibition era in 1933, two brothers, Ernest and Julio Gallo, decided to start their own winery. After discovering an old University of California pamphlet on winemaking in the basement of the Modesto Library, they began their business with only $5,900 on hand, a keen business sense, and an entrepreneurial spirit. Over time, they grew their small, family-owned business into one of the largest wineries in the world.

The Gallo brothers recognized the fertile soil of the San Joaquin Valley as an ideal location for starting a winery. Competing against hundreds of startup wineries across California following Prohibition, they quickly rose to the top by making wine affordable to everyday people instead of marketing solely to the upper echelons of society. Their business model caught on and E. & J. Gallo Winery quickly became one of the most respected in the business.

Decades later, E. & J. Gallo Winery has become one of the most influential wineries worldwide, with over 60 unique wines from a wide variety of locales. They have made a commitment to environmentally sustainable farming and have become a model for the rest of the industry. The Gallo Winery employs 4,600 people in the state of California, providing critical highly skilled employment opportunities in the San Joaquin Valley.

E. & J. Gallo Winery has been honored with countless awards for achievement in winemaking, including the American Society of Enologists Merit Award--the wine industry's highest honor--in 1964 for outstanding leadership in the wine industry, the Gold Vine Award from the Brotherhood of the Knights of the Vine wine fraternity, the 1983 Distinguished Service Award from The Wine Spectator, and the Winery of the Year Award in both 1996 and 1998 by the San Francisco International Wine Competition.

Few companies rival the generous spirit of E. & J. Gallo Winery. Throughout the state of California, they invested in local communities, including an endowment for the Gallo Center for the Arts in Modesto, and the establishment of the Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center at the University of California at San Francisco for research into genetic, biochemical and neurobiological aspects of alcohol abuse.

Madam Speaker, it is our great honor and privilege to recognize E. & J. Gallo Winery on the advent of their 75th anniversary. Their contributions to the wine industry, to agriculture, and to the San Joaquin Valley are an inspiration to us all and we continue to wish them great success for many years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of the recent passage of the amended version of H.R. 6842, the National Capitol Security and Safety Act. This legislation will finally bring the District of Columbia into compliance with the Second Amendment rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

On June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court correctly struck down a 32-year-old ban on handgun possession and ownership in the District of Columbia in District of Columbia v. Heller. This handgun ban required that all firearms within the city boundaries be registered, all owners be licensed, and prohibited the registration of handguns after September 24, 1976, making it one of the strictest in the country.

The District Council responded to the Heller decision with a temporary, emergency law that made some advances in returning gun rights to District residents but, unfortunately, retained a number of discriminatory obstacles to handgun possession. H.R. 6842, as amended, will revise the District of Columbia code to remove these unnecessary and unconstitutional hurdles to gun ownership. Among other things, the legislation will amend the registration requirements so that they do not apply to handguns, remove arbitrary limits on ammunition and repeal some criminal penalties for carrying unlicensed handguns. In total, H.R. 6842 will allow residents of the District to finally exercise their right to bear arms in a responsible manner, without unnecessary government regulation.

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have consistently co-sponsored legislation to end the DC handgun ban and to expand and preserve Second Amendment rights within the District. While I certainly appreciate the desire to consider rates of violent crime when crafting gun control legislation, our country is based on the premise that enforcement of our fundamental rights cannot be haphazard. Those rights, especially those clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, must not be dismissed or diluted.

As a hunter and lifelong gun rights advocate, I applaud the passage of the amended version of H.R. 6842 and I look forward to Senate action on this measure.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1491 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1491.

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

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1491 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, September 25, 2008, on 44 separate measures. This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.

This is not unusual. In fact, in the 109th Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided for additional suspension days. This bill limits the suspension of rules only to those measures listed in the rule itself so Members on both sides of the aisle are aware of exactly what bills may be considered under this suspension of the rules.

This is standard procedure at the end of the legislative session and includes both House bills that we will send to the Senate for consideration and Senate-passed bills that are ready to become law once they pass the House.

I would remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that bills considered under suspension of the rules must receive strong bipartisan support in order to pass the House.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule which will simply help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that is important to our constituents and

that will receive overwhelmingly bipartisan support and that will hopefully become law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any additional speakers. I am the last speaker on my side.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Florida has raised several issues with regard to the procedures of the House for the last 2 years. The gentleman is correct that there have been a number of closed rules this year. But I would like to just say, in response to that, that we have had to try and manage this House with a very obstinate Republican minority in the Senate.

There has been a record number of filibusters that have been put forward this year to try and stop everything that we have tried to accomplish in this body. In fact, there has been an absolute stonewalling on the number of conference committees, breaking down the bipartisan process, breaking down the comity that engages both Houses, so that we can get something done for the American people. By refusing to go to conference, this has gummed up the arteries of this body, and it, frankly, is the Republican minority in the other body that has really made this a very difficult House and institution to manage.

Madam Speaker, I would also say that the gentleman mentioned that this is--well, first of all, he acknowledged that we are telling everyone today the 44 bills that we are, in fact, bringing forward in this rule. Six times the gentleman's party, in the last Congress, did not tell us what they were bringing forward in a rule. And I can cite the dates. We have the information.

The reality is that this is not an uncommon practice at the end of the session. We would like to, as we are doing in this rule, do it every time, but sometimes it's possible at the end of the session we're simply running out of time.

So, Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a standard procedure at the end of the legislative session that will simply

help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that will receive overwhelming bipartisan support.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question, Madam Speaker.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of officially recognizing October 8, 2008, as 4-H National Youth Science Day.

To show its commitment to providing a quality science education, 4-H National Youth Science Day will take place during National 4-H Week and features a ``National Science Experiment''--a designated science activity that will engage youth across the country in environmental issues relating to water conservation and groundwater contamination.

Over 100 years ago, 4-H began with the creation of agriculture projects geared at ensuring the future of our Nation's rural youth. Today, with a membership of 6 million young people, 4-H is America's largest youth organization and is an essential tool to engage and educate our future generations of scientists and inventors at a young age.

My own daughter Brittany had a very positive experience with 4-H in California learning

how to sew and quilt and raising her heifer named Lucy.

4-H's efforts to make science education enjoyable and interesting are noteworthy as barely 18 percent of 12th grade students in the United States are currently performing at or above the proficient level in science.

Similarly, only 32.4 percent of undergraduates in America are leaving college with a bachelor's degree in science or engineering, and a majority of scientists believe that the United States is falling behind in science and innovation.

In response to these sobering statistics, the National Academy of Sciences issued the timely report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, calling for an ambitious national program to address the need for increased math and science education.

According to the report, two important factors that America depends on to compete successfully in the global marketplace are: (1) a well- trained and technically competent workforce; and (2) the production of scientific and technological innovations.

Recognizing and promoting these goals is critical if America is going to remain a competitive leader in the global economy, and assistance from programs like 4-H will be vital in this effort.

I urge my colleagues to join me in my support for H. Res. 1390 to officially recognize October 8, 2008, as 4-H National Youth Science Day and encourage young people of all ages and backgrounds to pursue their interest in science and innovation.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois for his gracious management of this issue, and also my colleague from Minnesota, who spoke so graciously in support of it.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 1332, the Fostering Employment Opportunities Act.

I also want to thank Chairman McDermott who is in the House Chamber at this time, and Congressman Fattah, both of whom join me as co- authors of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, there are over a half a million children who have been abused or abandoned, through no fault of their own, who end up in the United States foster care system. While in foster care, many of them experience multiple placements and find it difficult to establish a community.

Madam Speaker, every year, 26,000 young people are discharged from foster care on the midnight of their 18th birthday with few resources to start their own lives. Their health care coverage is terminated in a vast number of States, and with little or no family support, many of them end up homeless or unemployed or in jail.

I have met a number of these youth, and they are remarkable survivors. They have the same hopes and dreams as all other children in America. They want to be mechanics and doctors. They want to serve our country as soldiers and policemen. But they have a harder path to realizing their dream.

Despite their resilience and their other unique qualities that make these youth ideal candidates for employment, statistically, foster youth are the most likely to be unemployed, and comprise 27 percent of the Nation's homeless population. Part of it has to do with the impact of the instability of their younger years. And part is the result of the negative and unjustified stereotypes placed on this population that may cause employers to look past this pool of qualified candidates.

Another part is that many young people today are connected to the workforce through internships, often arranged by their parents, with business or social associates and connections. However, foster youth tend to lack a stable environment due to the number of foster home placements that they have over the course of their lives, and have limited family or community connections. As such, foster youth are not afforded the same opportunities and are often left behind.

This resolution is simple. It encourages employers to look twice at these remarkable young people who are highly qualified, in many cases, and equally deserving.

Madam Speaker, I speak to you today as a father as well as an author of this resolution. A father of two foster children who I am so lucky, my wife and I are so lucky to have adopted, one of whom is with me today, my daughter, Elaina. She, luckily has a home now. It is a permanent home. That wasn't always the case for her. We are just looking to offer the same kinds of opportunities that this country will offer Elaina now, to every foster youth in the country.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern for the devastating toll the housing crisis is taking on the neighborhoods of my district and throughout the country.

A report issued this week identified three cities in my district as having the highest rates of foreclosure in the entire Nation. In Stockton, Merced and Modesto, California, families are struggling to make increasing mortgage payments. Homeowners have lost over 40 percent of their homes' equity and communities are burdened with vacant, deteriorating housing. These vacant properties lower home values, attract vandalism and pests and contribute to overall neighborhood decline, as well as disrupting the family unit. At this rate, my district and communities across the country will be recovering from the foreclosure epidemic for years to come.

Borrowers and lenders have a duty to their country to help us overcome this housing crisis. Homeowners should try to work with banks instead of abandoning their homes. And financial institutions must restructure mortgages whenever feasible.

During the Great Depression, families and banks worked together to help America through these tough times. I urge us to get back to that attitude.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for the recent decision made by the United States Supreme Court upholding the right of residents of the District of Columbia and elsewhere to keep and bear arms. On Thursday, June 26, 2008, the Court rightly struck down the decades old ban on handgun possession and ownership in the District of Columbia, one of the strictest bans in the country.

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have co-sponsored legislation to end this ban and to expand gun rights within the District to preserve the Second Amendment rights guaranteed to all Americans by the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, I signed an amicus brief along with 249 other members of this respected body opposing the District's gun ban and urging the Supreme Court to recognize its constitutional defects.

In issuing its decision, the Court affirmed and protected the Constitution and the right of a sportsman to have a registered shotgun in his home and renewed the right of a homeowner to possess a handgun in order to protect one's family and property from intruders.

While I certainly understand the desire to consider occurrences of violent crime when

crafting gun control legislation, our country is based on the premise that enforcement of our fundamental rights cannot be haphazard. Our Founding Fathers fought for the individual liberties we all enjoy-- among them, the right to possess firearms. This right, along with the freedom of the press or the privilege against self-incrimination, must not be dismissed or diluted.

As a hunter and gun rights advocate, I applaud the Supreme Court for its decision. I look forward to continuing my work in Congress to protect the integrity of the Second Amendment.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1317 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during the consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1317.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1317 provides for consideration of H.R. 1286, the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule makes in order two germane Republican amendments that were submitted for consideration and are printed in the Rules Committee report.

The rule also provides for the adoption of a germane Rules Committee amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report to clarify that the bill does not in any way limit access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting along the trail.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

And, finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 1286, amends the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail.

The trail extends approximately 600 miles, spanning nine States and the District of Columbia, tracing the routes taken by the armies under the command of General George Washington and French Count Rochambeau on their march from Newport, Rhode Island, to face the British forces under General Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia.

After meeting in Philipsburg, New York, the combined armies traveled through New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and the future District of Columbia before arriving in Virginia.

With a French fleet blocking the Chesapeake, barring British reinforcements from New York or a sea escape for Cornwallis' troops, the combined Continental and French armies' 3-week siege at Yorktown ended with General Cornwallis' surrender to General Washington on October 19, 1781.

Historians regard the Battle of Yorktown as one of the most decisive events in bringing an end to the American Revolution and the beginning of a new and independent Nation known as America.

H.R. 1286 is the carefully considered result of years of study by the National Park Service, which found that the trail is suitable and feasible for designation as a national historic trail.

I would add that H.R. 1286 includes specific language protecting private property rights, prohibiting the Federal Government from acquiring any land or interest in land without the consent of the owner.

In fact, the Park Service study found that ``no Federal acquisition of lands or interests in lands is proposed or anticipated.''

H.R. 1286 also states that nothing shall prohibit or hinder the development, conveyance, or transmission of energy along the trail.

Finally, there is a Rules Committee amendment to the bill that would clarify that Federal designation of the trail has no impact on State and local laws governing hunting, fishing, or trapping, or recreational shooting. This language is nearly identical to language that has already overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives.

I would like to commend Chairman Rahall and Mr. Hinchey for bringing this widely supported legislation to the floor today so we can ensure that America's history is protected for future generations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my good friend, my colleague from Washington State, has once again leveled a litany of accusations and, as usual, the rhetoric does not equate with the reality that we see.

Let's take the attacks one by one. There were a total of five amendments submitted to this rule, all by Republicans. Three amendments were submitted by Mr. Bishop of Utah, one by Mr. Flake of Arizona, and one by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico. Two amendments were made in order, Bishop No. 1 and Pearce No. 4. Two amendments were not germane to the bill and ruled out of order by the Parliamentarian, Bishop No. 3 and Flake No. 5. The subject matter contained in amendment No. 2 by Representative Bishop was already being addressed by a self-executing provision in the rule which was based on language previously adopted in this House by a vote of 416-5, rollcall vote 171, with all Republicans, including my good friend from Washington, voting in favor of the amendment.

Let me take this opportunity to clear up what must be a further misunderstanding on the part of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Contrary to what my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, would have us believe, the amendment was not the modified Bishop amendment. And I can assure you that the Rules Committee did not hijack any portion of the amendment submitted by our good friend and former member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop). The provision in the rule was based on language passed on April 9, 2008 during consideration of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, and it was done to address a concern that a number of Members had about the bill. The amendment was offered by Mr. Altmire of Pennsylvania, was adopted with an overwhelming rollcall vote, as I said before, with every Republican voting in favor of the amendment. If you don't take my word for it, I would be happy to share the Rules Committee report from that bill, which contains the text of the amendment. And I have copies of the section of the Congressional Record that contain the debate and the vote on the Altmire amendment.

I also want to point out that the self-executing language in the rule is not an unusual or unprecedented procedure. It was done numerous times when the other side was in the majority, as my good friend from California (Mr. Dreier) alluded to in committee testimony on Tuesday. It's a legitimate tool available to address concerns in a bill.

The amendment that we are self-executing is nearly identical to the Altmire language. The Rules Committee believes that this language improves the bill. And it is entirely reasonable to self-execute language with a track record of overwhelming bipartisan support in the House. Those Members who don't like the language are perfectly able to vote against the rule.

Now the question of gas prices. Certainly this is an important issue that has been addressed by this House a number of times. We have seen oil climb to record $145 a barrel, and we have also seen big oil companies continue to post record profits. Let's go over a few of the points that have happened in the past years.

The President signed into law legislation including landmark provisions to make cars and trucks more fuel efficient and to promote more affordable American biofuels. That all happened because we passed it in this House and provided leadership on this. The new fuel standards will reduce our oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels a day in 2020, one-half of the current U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf, and will save American families $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump.

The House also passed legislation to suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And just this week, the Speaker called on the President to unilaterally start releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to try and bring down the cost of oil on the world market, a very responsible proposal.

We have also voted to invest in home-grown American biofuels in the farm bill. We voted to provide tax incentives for renewable energies and energy efficiency and plug-in vehicles, and creating hundreds and thousands of green jobs. We further voted to reduce public transit fares for commuters pinched by the pump. We voted to crack down on oil price gouging, and in fact we're looking into more of that. We've directed the CFTC to use its full authority to curtail excessive speculation in the markets and other practices which may be distorting the energy market. In fact, the Ag Committee, as we speak, is meeting to look into this matter and plans another hearing tomorrow. We have voted to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing, and we have called on the repeal of subsidies to profit-rich Big Oil so we can invest in renewable energy futures.

Further, I think it's important for us, as Members, to look at who, in fact, is moving to block the lowering of our prices at the pump. A general blanket statement that we can make, that I have observed, is you put oil people in the White House and you can expect oil prices to go up. President Bush and Republicans have blocked virtually every step that we have tried to make to lower gas prices for the American people. Some of these steps have been:

Cracking down on oil price gouging, which was opposed by 140 Republicans the first time and 145 Republicans the second time, including all the Republican leadership.

The Democrats in the House proposed ``use it or lose it'' for oil companies holding permits and not drilling. There are 68 million acres that are available for lease right now and to be drilled upon. That use-it-or-lose-it provision that was sponsored by House Democrats was opposed by 176 Republicans.

The motion to hold OPEC accountable was opposed by 67 Republicans the first time and by 82 Republicans the second time, including most of the Republican leadership.

The proposal repealing subsidies to profit-rich oil companies and investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency was opposed by 174 Republicans, including every member of the Republican leadership.

Increasing Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight authority to prevent manipulation of energy prices, which was in the farm bill, was opposed by 94 Republicans.

The Bush administration has vetoed or threatened to veto each and every one of these price control bills.

In addition, the Republicans have initially opposed suspending the Strategic Oil Petroleum Reserve. And while the President signed it into law, it was only after issuing veto threats.

The President vetoed the farm bill twice, which included the CFTC provisions and the historic investment in American biofuels.

I mention all these in the context of my good friend from Washington bringing up that Mr. Clinton vetoed in 1995 a bill that was put forward on energy. The Republican Party in this House is

still blaming President Clinton for problems 13 years after the fact when they have been in control of this House and the Presidency for the last 7\1/2\ years for the Presidency and almost 14 for this House before we took over in 2006. I think it's time for us to understand who truly has culpability with this energy crisis that is at hand today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would love to point out to the gentleman that there were a number of self-executing provisions put into bills while the current minority was in the majority in the 109th Congress. There were a total of 44 rules with self-executing provisions.

Let me read just a few examples of the self-executing rules that the Republicans did when they were in the majority just to show that this is not a unique practice:

H. Res. 75, the rule on H.R. 418, the REAL ID bill, self-executed major changes in the bill to gain votes on the bill and the rule.

H. Res. 151, the rule for an Iraq/Afghanistan/tsunami relief bill, self-executed the totally unrelated REAL ID bill to the supplemental after final passage.

H. Res. 248, a rule on the budget resolution conference report, self- executed a new budget point of order against appropriations bills in order to get the conservative Republicans to vote for the conference report.

H. Res. 258, a rule on the conference report on the Iraq/Afghanistan/ tsunami emergency supplemental, contained a self-executing provision that authorized the Judiciary Committee to file a supplemental report on an extremely controversial report that had grossly mischaracterized votes taking place in the Judiciary Committee markup.

H. Res. 351, one rule, provided for separate consideration of four OSHA bills, each under a closed rule, and then self-executed language for two of the bills adopting the committee-reported substitutes. The rule also had a self-executing provision that combined all four bills into one text after passage of each bill separately.

H. Res. 365, a State Department authorization rule, self-executed an amendment that struck a section of the bill.

H. Res. 369, the PATRIOT Act reauthorization rule, made in order an entirely new substitute as base text.

H. Res. 387, a China trade rights enforcement rule, self-executed a new text that was considered under a closed rule.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that my colleagues doth protest too much.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to observe once again that this Congress has approved and authorized 66 million acres for exploration and leasing throughout this country. Now, that may be hard for some folks to visualize that amount of property, so let's talk about it in something that people understand, the size of States.

Sixty-six million acres is virtually the size of New England, including New Jersey and Maryland and Delaware. That is the size of land that we have opened up to exploration. Can we do more? Possibly. Are there other alternatives? Absolutely. The Speaker this week proposed trying to bring down prices by opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That might actually bring down the cost of oil, and all we've gotten from the White House is a blanket ``absolutely not.''

Madam Speaker, there are a number of measures that this House has moved to try and bring down oil prices and bring relief to the American people. We started in our 6 for '06 with H.R. 6 that tried to bring down oil prices before it was ever even a crisis because we anticipated that this might be a problem. I would also suggest that it has been said that over 90 percent of the Bush-Cheney oil energy policy has been implemented by the prior 109th Congress and the Republican Congresses before that. Mr. Bush got 90 percent of what he wanted for American energy and we have this crisis. I submit to you what we need is a change at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to try and regain energy independence and with a change there we may just do that.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We have no more speakers.

I am, Madam Speaker.

I would just like to clarify for my colleague from Washington. Once again, he sort of mischaracterized what is happening in the House of Representatives with regard to the work that we are doing to lower gas prices.

I would invite the gentleman to join me in the Ag Committee as I leave this chamber today and go to hearings that will be going on all afternoon in the Ag Committee to get to the bottom of the trading issues that might be leading to increased speculatory problems that are possibly causing increased gas prices and the hearings that we are going to have in the Ag Committee all day tomorrow with regard to the same subject. There are a number of us that will be working very hard the next 2 days to try and resolve to get to the bottom of this crisis.

Madam Speaker, I want to refer back to the bill at hand. We have gotten way far afield of what the topic was of discussion for this rule, and that is the National Trail System Act. That act was put in place 40 years ago to provide for the conservation of historic and culturally significant areas.

I think there is no more deserving historic designation than the one commemorating our Nation's struggle for independence. The bill that we are talking about deserves strong support by all Members of the floor. It's a good bill done by the Natural Resources Committee and chairman, Mr. Rahall, bringing it to the floor. I would urge that we support it heartily.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

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

Amendment to H. Res. 1317 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2208) to provide for a

standby loan program for certain coal-to-liquid projects. All

points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall

be considered as read. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one

hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy

and Commerce, and the chairman and ranking member of the

Committee on Science and Technology; and (2) an amendment in

the nature of a substitute if offered by Representative

Dingell of Michigan or his designee, which shall be

considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40

minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and

an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to honor the late Jose Rivera, a correctional officer at the Federal penitentiary in Atwater, California.

Officer Rivera's life was taken by two inmates on Friday, June 20, 2008. He was 22 years old. He is survived by his mother, Terry, by his sisters Teresa, Martha and Angelica and by his brother, Daniel.

After graduating from Le Grand High School, he served for 4 years in the Navy, completing two tours of duty in Iraq, and he began his career as a correctional officer on August 5, 2007. His life of service was cut tragically short.

Mr. Speaker, I have long voiced my concerns, most recently in a letter I sent in April to the director of the Bureau of Prisons, about the lack of sufficient resources and staff to safely operate our Federal prisons.

The fact is that staffing levels are decreasing while inmate populations are increasing. The Atwater Penitentiary is operating at 85 percent of the staffing level and is at 25 percent overcapacity for inmate levels.

As we honor Officer Rivera's legacy of commitment and service to our country, his senseless death is a reminder that we must provide adequate funds to keep our prisons and our communities safe.

I want to start off by thanking Chairman McDermott for doing a fabulous job on this bill on behalf of foster kids generally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6307, the Fostering Connections to Success Act. Many of my colleagues already know that I care deeply about foster care, in part because 8 years ago, my wife and I adopted two of our children from foster care.

We didn't know much about foster care back then, but we certainly are intimately familiar with it at this point, and familiar with the plight of foster kids in America. These children who come into foster care through no fault of their own face a number of inequalities compared to children who have not endured the type of abuse that typically places a foster child in care.

While foster parents receive Federal assistance to care for kids in their home, family members, many of whom would willingly care for their nieces and nephews, only if they had a little help to do so, are denied foster care payments. This legislation will end that misguided policy and provide that assistance to family members.

While biological children count on health insurance policies of their parents until the age of 25, foster children's health care coverage is often terminated on the night of their 18th birthday. Mr. Speaker, I want to believe that all children are self-sufficient on the day they turn 18, but as a father, both of us know better than that.

Earlier this year, I introduced legislation that would require health care coverage for children in foster care until the age of 21. Chairman McDermott lent his support to my bill, and I understand there is a similar provision in his bill to provide States with the option of extending health care coverage.

I hope that all States will exercise this option because parents don't walk out on their kids at 18, and neither should we.

Thank you, Mr. McDermott.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill will improve the oversight of health care needs for our children in foster care. My wife is a family doctor, and she has been taken aback by the lack of oversight in the medical treatment of foster kids. The committee heard testimony from foster children who have been over-prescribed or mis-prescribed numerous medications. I know personally that my children received several rounds of immunizations, when they only needed one set.

It's about time we raise the standards for continuity of health care, medical records, and prescription drugs, and this legislation will in fact accomplish that. I will continue to work with my colleagues and fight on the behalf of abused and neglected children in America. I thank the gentleman who has authored this bill for doing the same, and I thank him for bringing this legislation to the floor.