Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1276 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 have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1276.

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

House Resolution 1276 provides for consideration of H.R. 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008, 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 Education and Labor.

The rule makes in order two amendments that were submitted for consideration and are printed in the Rules Committee report, including a bipartisan manager's amendment. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The bill before us today, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, responds to an urgent need to protect our Nation's vulnerable children. An estimated 20 to 30,000 U.S. teenagers attend private residential programs, including therapeutic boarding schools, wilderness camps, boot camps, and behavioral modification facilities. These residential facilities are intended to help treat children with behavioral, emotional or mental health problems.

However, many of these facilities are loosely regulated, if they are even regulated at all. As a result, some of the very facilities that are supposed to be providing a safe environment for our Nation's vulnerable children have, instead, provided us with some of the most shocking accounts of child abuse and neglect we have ever been witness to.

A comprehensive report by the Government Accountability Office recently uncovered thousands of allegations of child abuse and neglect at private residential programs for teens. Tragically, in a number of these cases, this abuse and neglect led to the child's death.

I won't describe the horrifying stories, but I will say that they go far beyond simple maltreatment. The stories are deplorable. They are inexcusable, and they are inhumane.

This bill, H.R. 5876, will keep children safe by imposing new national standards for residential treatment programs. These standards include prohibitions on denying children food, water, clothing, shelter or medical care for any reason, including as a form of punishment.

The bill upholds core moral values by specifically prohibiting programs from engaging in practices that physically, sexually or mentally abuse or torment children in their care.

It requires programs to train staff in understanding what constitutes child abuse and neglect and how to report it, and it requires programs to have emergency medical care plans in place.

The bill also includes several other provisions, such as requiring programs to disclose to parents the qualifications of staff, notifying parents of substantiated reports of abuse, and providing grant money to States if they develop their own standards that are at least as strong as the national ones.

On a personal note, I would like to say that my wife, Kathie, and I are proud parents of three children, two of which we adopted from foster care. I can tell you from my own personal experience that nothing is more important to a child's life than having a secure home.

No child should ever be subject to abuse or neglect, especially when in the care of those who are supposed to be providing treatment.

I commend Chairman Miller for his tireless efforts on behalf of our Nation's children. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that my colleague from Florida has been a true champion on behalf of the pro- democracy forces in Cuba; that certainly I join him in denouncing any of the horrible acts that he described today, and I praise the emotion and spirit with which he brings his fight towards democracy in Cuba to the floor. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

But I will tell you, however much I praise his efforts there, with regard to the seven amendments that he talked about, the seven Republican amendments submitted in the Rules Committee, they were disposed of in I believe a very fair and equitable manner.

Two were withdrawn by the authors. One was addressed in the manager's amendment. The amendment of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) was addressed in the manager's amendment. Two amendments amended portions of the bill that were deleted by the manager's amendment and thus are moot; and two dealt with earmarks that are not in the bill. So frankly, all of the amendments were dealt with in a fair and evenhanded manner. I believe this truly is a bipartisan bill.

It is with that spirit, Madam Speaker, that I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), the chairman of the Healthy Families Subcommittee and a champion for children.

Madam Speaker, I have one additional speaker at this time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee and a true champion for children in this House.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I am the final speaker on my side of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I'd like to remind my friend and colleague from Florida that it has been the other body, the Republicans in the other body and the White House who have stymied the Democratic efforts to actually reduce gas prices and provide alternative energy for this country. Certainly, it is a problem, and certainly, the American people are very frustrated at paying $4 or more, in my State it's much more for a gallon of gas. But had we at least moved in a new direction, we could be heading in that direction. But we have been totally stymied by the White House and the Senate on these questions.

Madam Speaker, today's bill deals with children, and there is an urgent problem in many residential treatment facilities that have gone unchecked for far too long and must be addressed. H.R. 5876 will go a long way towards ensuring the safety of our Nation's children who depend on these treatment facilities.

Again, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation to protect our kids in these treatment facilities.

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

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1276 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

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. 2279) to expedite the

construction of new refining capacity on closed military

installations in the United States. 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 find 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 Armed

Services; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute

if offered by Representative Dingell of Michigan or

Representative Skelton of Missouri, 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.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-llinois) said: ``The

previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New

York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to

him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 1091th Congress,

(page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule

using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools

for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and

allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer

an alternative plan.

Madam Speaker, I yield back 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 1218 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1218.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1218 provides for the further consideration of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, under a structured rule, without further general debate.

The rule makes in order 58 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration under this rule. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the committee report and amendments en bloc except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule also provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 5658, the text of H.R. 6048, as passed by the House, shall be added at the end of H.R. 5658.

Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of Thursday, May 22, 2008, relating to any measure pertaining to agricultural programs.

Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to finish consideration of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. General debate on this measure concluded last night. This two-part process has been used over the years to ensure that the Rules Committee has ample time to consider amendments submitted to the committee. This year, 121 amendments were submitted for consideration.

As my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said on the floor yesterday, the defense authorization bill is one of the most comprehensive and important pieces of legislation this House considers each year.

I salute the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, and Ranking Member Hunter for their hard work and cooperative effort in bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. Their bill passed the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 61-0, a testament to their bipartisan efforts and desire to ensure our Armed Forces have all the tools they need to maintain our national security and to provide our servicemembers in harm's way with the best gear and force protection possible.

America has the finest military in the world, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policies in Iraq have depleted our great military, put a tremendous strain on our troops, and dropped the Army's readiness to unprecedented levels.

H.R. 5658 takes us in a new direction. It will help restore our Nation's military readiness and protect our troops in harm's way. This bill supports our troops and their families by giving the military a pay raise larger than was requested by the President and prohibiting TRICARE fee increases. It focuses on the war in Afghanistan. It also includes Iraq policy provisions that ban permanent bases in Iraq and require the Iraqi Government to pay its fair share of reconstruction costs.

In the spirit of maintaining the committee agreement and the overwhelming bipartisan support for this bill and to further ensure that our military is fully prepared and our troops get the benefits they deserve, the Rules Committee has made in order 58 amendments for consideration on the floor today. These are amendments that the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee determined would not disrupt the bill's carefully negotiated content and warranted further consideration.

In addition, this rule also allows the Speaker to bring up under suspension of the rules any measure pertaining to agricultural programs.

As we all know and we heard on the floor yesterday, an unintentional clerical error occurred prior to the enrollment of the farm bill. As a result, the President did not receive the full bill. The distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, has been working to remedy this situation so the President may receive the full bill for his consideration.

As a result, if a resolution is reached, and I do not know the status of the negotiations between Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Boehner, the resulting end product will be brought to the floor without further delay so that we may complete nearly 2 years of effort and deliver once and for all on the promises we made long ago to America's farmers and ranchers.

In the meantime I must remind our colleagues that the current farm bill extension is set to expire unless we act today. Whether a resolution is reached in the coming days or how we resolve this clerical error, we must, Mr. Speaker, extend the current farm bill and this rule will simply allow that to occur.

Much will be made of this rule by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but I will remind them that any farm bill measure that may come before the House today will come up under suspension of the rules. That means that two-thirds of the House must support any suspension bill in order for it to pass the House. That further means that there will be no political gamesmanship and we must have a strong bipartisan vote in order to pass any bill that reaches the floor.

The farm bill conference report has overwhelming bipartisan support. It passed this House with 318 votes. It passed the Senate with 81 votes. It represents the tireless effort of many Members, including myself, and is far too important to fail, Mr. Speaker, especially in light of what was an unintended clerical error.

This rule ensures swift passage of a bipartisan defense bill and a remedy to our already passed bipartisan farm bill, and I demand that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just like to say to my friend and the gentleman from Washington State that his claim that it was never brought before the House is simply not the facts. I was on the floor. I heard Mr. Peterson announce to the floor that in fact there had been an error yesterday during the debate for the override. In fact, Mr. Peterson said that he had been discussing with Mr. Goodlatte the situation and how to remedy it. In fact, Mr. Hoyer acknowledged it on the floor.

There has been no glossing over this. Mr. Hoyer readily acknowledged on the floor last night that there was a clerical error about this. Certainly we are concerned about how to remedy this. That is why we are bringing this rule to the floor. We are also concerned that the farm bill expires. We have brought a resolution to the floor that allows for a bipartisan compromise that would fix that situation.

We are trying to solve problems here today. We are trying to do right by our military, we are trying to do right by our farmers, and we are doing it in a manner that would require, with regard to the farmers, at least, a two-thirds vote of this House to resolve the problem.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that we are doing everything possible to remedy this situation, and we are doing it in a bipartisan manner.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules Committee, a leader in the farm bill debate, and a great friend.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comments we just heard from our distinguished former chairman of the committee, while a lot of us have sympathy for the amendment that the gentleman put forward, it is my understanding that no defense contractor currently can meet the requirements of that 85 percent. So that is an issue that is bigger than just simply this bill. It probably needs to be dealt with in the Armed Services Committee so they can decide the proper course of action, and it was not ruled in order for that reason.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) to respond to Mr. Dreier's remarks.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a gentleman who worked tirelessly on the farm bill and who has worked tirelessly on behalf of defense matters, my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentleman from Maryland for giving us an incredibly articulate, accurate, and statesmanlike presentation.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the gentleman from Arizona, I would certainly like to say he's certainly been bipartisan in his offering of striking of earmarks. He's offered them in the past on both sides, and I will acknowledge that the gentleman has talked to the majority leader and it will be under discussion.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire from the gentleman from Washington if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot entertain a motion on unanimous consent to extend. We've been debating this for longer than the allotted period of time already.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will let the numbers speak for themselves.

The bipartisan defense bill passed through the committee by a vote of 61-0. Fifty-eight amendments were made in order in the spirit of maintaining that bipartisan vote. The bipartisanship that was exhibited on the farm bill and the farm bill vote was 318 ayes, and 81 in the Senate voted ``aye.''

However you look at it, the facts remain that these overwhelmingly bipartisan measures deserve and demand our strongest support. I encourage the House to vote in the affirmative.

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. 1218 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution. add the following:

Sec. 9. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution or the operation of the previous question, it

shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which

the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of

lowering the national average price per gallon of regular

unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall he considered as

read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be

subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand

for division of the question in the House or in the Committee

of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are

waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For

purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a

statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record

by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration

shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, I thank him for his leadership and for allowing us to write this bill the way we did, including specialty crops. And I rise in strong support of overriding the misguided Presidential veto on the Farm, Conservation and Energy Act.

It is extremely unfortunate that we must go through this exercise on legislation that is so critically important to both rural and urban America alike. The bipartisan conference report on the 2008 farm bill represents the blood, sweat, and tears of many members on this floor and of the other body of the agriculture committees and including myself. We have made significant reforms, preserved the safety net for American farmers, and dramatically increased domestic nutrition assistance. And for the first time in history we have given specialty crops a seat at the table. We did all of this, and we complied with the PAYGO rules of this House.

It is not a perfect bill. There are some who would have preferred more conservation spending or more reforms. However, the 2008 farm bill is the product of hard work and compromise, and should not be discounted simply because we could not meet the unrealistic, impractical, and unworkable benchmarks set by the administration.

I take particularly strong exception to the President's repeated insistence in the farm bill that it must be vetoed in the name of international trade agreements. Meeting our global trade obligations should never trump critical domestic priorities. Our farmers have the capacity for immeasurable innovation and success, and they deserve our commitment and our support, and it is done in this farm bill.

The President has let down American agriculture today, and that is just a shame. But I am confident that, together with the Senate, we can override this veto today and make good on our promise to protect American farmers and ranchers. I strongly urge my colleagues to override this veto.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleague, Mr. McDermott, and urge the support of H. Res. 1185. Since being elected to public office, I have been in advocate for children in foster care; in part because 8 years ago my wife and I adopted two of our children from foster care.

As a result, we became intimately aware of the status of America's foster care system. This resolution commends the hard work and sacrifice of the thousands of American families who care for foster children. As an adoptive foster parent, I know the joy these children bring. I also know that caring for children who, in some cases, have survived atrocious abuse and neglect can be extremely challenging. Many foster parents open their hearts and homes to children with the trauma and pain of a broken past. Many times these caregivers receive little or no support from the Federal government as they take in our Nation's most vulnerable young people.

Despite record food prices, foster families across America stretch their budgets to feed additional children that they have welcomed into their homes. Despite rising gas prices; foster families do their best to drive children to schools, take them to doctor's appointments, and attend little league games--because they know that's the kind of support these children have never had. They do a great service for America, Mr. Speaker, and deserve to be commended for their efforts.

While we recognize and commend their service, we need to do more to ensure a better future for these children when they leave foster homes. We need to do more to heal the minds and bodies of these children, so that the investment that foster parents have made in their lives is not lost to homelessness, drug addiction, and gang involvement that so many of these children turn to when they are abandoned again as they exit foster care.

The public may not be aware that on the night of their 18th birthday, most states terminate all services for foster children. Parents know that most children in our society are not self-sufficient the day they turn 18. For example: we don't expect our children to afford health coverage when they turn 18. In fact, most parents retain their children under a family policy until age 23. Yet for the 26,000 vulnerable young Americans who age out of the foster care system, we eliminate their healthcare coverage the moment they turn 18. Mr. Speaker, we need to do better. We need to extend healthcare coverage for children in foster care to age 21. The pathway to extend coverage already exists in current law, but only 17 states have implemented this option and I believe it is a moral and societal imperative to make this the standard across our Nation. Without proper healthcare many of these youth end up another sad statistic.

I know my good friend from Washington, Mr. McDermott, and I see eye- to-eye on this issue. Both he and I have introduced legislation that would make these necessary changes to healthcare coverage for foster children. Mr. Speaker, I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this resolution and to do better for America's foster children.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1189 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

This point of order is about whether or not to consider the rule and ultimately the underlying conference report. In my opinion, it is simply an effort to try to kill this bill without any debate, without an up-or-down vote on the conference report itself. It is nothing more than procedural roadblocks, something the other side has been using a fair amount recently. I don't believe it will work.

The gentleman has talked about the fact that he is not able to speak in opposition. The gentleman had an hour's worth of debate the other day on a motion to recommit. It is also my understanding that the chairman is working with the opposition to allow them time to discuss the bill within the rules that were set up.

This conference report is far too important, Mr. Speaker, to be blocked by a parliamentary tactic. We have worked on this bill for nearly 2 years and have accomplished what many of us thought was an impossible feat by bringing it to the floor.

Make no mistake about it. The Republican obstruction will ensure that a farm bill will not pass during this Congress. So despite whatever roadblocks the other side tries to use to stop this bill, we will stand up for America's hardworking farmers, for the hungry and for the millions of other Americans who will benefit from this farm bill.

We must consider this rule, and we must pass this important conference report without further delay.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding I have the right to close. But in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to my friend from Arizona with regard to the PAYGO issue, even though that is going to be addressed in the rule and not in this motion that he has brought forward now.

I didn't raise a point of order in your motion so you can have plenty of time to speak.

Let me tell you also that the chairman and the ranking member have, in my understanding, provided 10 minutes to both the Republic and Democratic opposition to this bill out of their time today. So we will be complying with the rules of the House. It is my understanding there will be 20 minutes in opposition.

With regard to PAYGO, the Senate and the House have adopted different rules. In the 1990s when the House and Senate had statutory PAYGO, both Chambers had the same rules with regard to PAYGO. The House rules talk about one issue with PAYGO. The Senate rules with another.

In this rule, we have tried to reconcile, we started this bill and actually passed it in a conference report, or we passed it out in chief from the Agriculture Committee to this floor and to a conference committee in 2007. That work was not completed in 2007, and thus we have this bill on the floor today.

There are many reasons why this bill didn't get finished in 2007. But because we have different rules in the House and Senate, we have decided that in order to make this bill work and achieve a conference report that we can bring to this floor that we will be discussing this further as we discussed the rule. But we have dealt with that in the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We have accommodated the Senate PAYGO rules as we have moved forward. And it is my opinion that this is a technical situation because we started this bill and passed this bill off the floor in 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.

I believe we are supposed to be talking about the unfunded mandates in this bill. If the gentleman would like to talk about the PAYGO rules, we should talk about this when we bring up the rule which that is germane to.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we will deal in the debate on the bill chiefly with regard to what the level of reforms is.

I would just like to tell my colleagues and my friends from both Arizona and Wisconsin that there are, in fact, significant reforms. In fact, if you take the ratio when this bill was first brought up in 2002, you have a situation where the nutrition part of this bill, versus commodities, was by a ratio of 2-1, $2 for nutrition for every dollar of commodity payments.

In this particular act that we are going to be bringing to the floor later today, it is my understanding, and my work with regard to the reforms, that there have been so many reforms put into this bill that the nutrition title versus the commodity payments is actually a 5-1 ratio at this point. I would say that indicates, as just one of many indicators, that you will see as we conduct this debate the significant reform that has happened in this bill.

I believe this is good work. I am very proud to be a part of bringing this bill to the floor. I believe it complies with the House Rules, and, I, again, want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider, so that we can pass this important piece of legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for an ``aye'' vote.

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

As my colleague knows, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and the underlying conference report for the farm bill. This point of order today is just another effort, in my opinion, by the other side of the aisle to block this critical legislation that we have worked on for nearly 2 years.

They don't want to debate, and they don't want to vote on this conference report. They simply want to obstruct through a parliamentary tactic.

I want to make it very clear that the farm bill fully complies with the earmark disclosure rules contained in clause 9 of rule XXI. I would suggest to those raising the point of order that they look in the statement of managers, and they will see a list of the earmarks. If they can't find that list, we will be happy to provide it for them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and to consider this important rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the committee, who I believe has done a fabulous job in bringing this bill to the floor, Collin Peterson of Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman raised a point of order with regard to earmarks, not with regard to the issue of PAYGO. That will be discussed in the rule itself. It will be germane to that later discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman says we talked about other issues in the last point of order, I was trying to be gracious with regard to the time and the discussion and allow the gentleman to speak. I raised an issue on the point of order on PAYGO because we are going to discuss that in the rules discussion, in the discussion of the rule.

I would just remind the gentleman that in the time he has taken on these

two points of order, he will probably have discussed this bill more than any other Member on the floor, even after we agreed to give him 20 minutes of debate on this topic. So I think that the gentleman thus protests too greatly, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that this conference report fully complies with the earmark rule. In my opinion, it fully complies with the spirit of PAYGO.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the chairman who would like to respond on that question as well.

Mr. Speaker, I control the time under the remainder of my motion, and I believe the gentleman is discussing the rule.

I don't yield, and if the gentleman from Washington would just suspend for a moment, I just would like to say that I do not yield because we are talking about a whole different topic here. I would like to make sure that we consider the point of order that has been raised directly by the gentleman from Arizona and not make this a wide-ranging debate with regard to the rule.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on consideration on this point of order, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1189.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1189 provides for consideration of H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, the continuation of the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007 which we passed off this floor in September of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, and it also provides one motion to recommit.

It should also be noted that despite the blanket waiver, the conference report does not violate clause 9 of rule XXI.

Furthermore, I want to point out that the conference report uses the CBO 2007 baseline, the year in which the bill passed both the House and the Senate, and under that baseline, CBO has determined that this conference report will not increase the deficit in either of the years 2008 through 2012 or in the years 2008 through 2017 scoring window.

Therefore, while there is a technical violation of clause 10 of rule XXI, this

conference report complies with the rule by remaining budget neutral with no net increase in direct spending. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not increase the deficit and it is PAYGO compliant.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of a subcommittee on the House Agriculture Committee, and as a member of the Rules Committee, I'm pleased to offer the Farm, Conservation, and Energy Act conference report for consideration today. This bipartisan conference report represents the blood, sweat and tears of many Members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, including myself. I would be remiss if I did not single out a few individuals at this time.

First, I must recognize Chairman Collin Peterson, without whom this farm bill would have never been completed. His unwavering dedication to seeing this bill through to completion should be an example to us all, and I am indeed grateful for his commitment, especially in the face of tremendous adversity.

I also want to thank Ranking Member Goodlatte, Leader Hoyer, and certainly, not least, our Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, for their steadfast commitment to creating a farm bill that we can all be proud of and to stand behind, and because of her leadership, there is, in fact, significant reform in this bill.

It is hard to believe, but we actually started this process nearly 2 years ago, starting with traveling to nearly every corner of this country to hear directly from farmers and ranchers from all walks of life about what they needed in a modern farm bill. We took these wide- ranging comments to heart and crafted a fiscally responsible, equitable and unparalleled farm bill.

I wish I could say that it was all a walk in the park. The House and the Senate passed their respective bills in 2007, and since January of this year, Members of the House and the Senate have been hammering out a compromise. There have been many battles, but in the end, this conference report is something I believe this House should be very proud of.

While people didn't get everything they wanted, the country got what it needed. That speaks volumes about the quality of this bill and tells me we ended up in exactly the right place.

The Farm, Conservation, and Energy Act builds upon the past successes of Federal farm policy by maintaining the farm bill's safety net, while at the same time providing for substantial increases in conservation, nutrition and energy.

However, I'm most proud of the $2.3 billion in new Federal investments for specialty crops, an industry that has been uniformly neglected in previous farm bills despite comprising nearly 50 percent of total farm gate value.

Furthermore, this farm bill contains unprecedented reforms to commodity programs by revising program eligibility and strengthening payment limitations.

Through major changes to the crop insurance program, we have also increased government efficiency and reduced the waste, fraud and abuse identified in the current farm programs.

More importantly, this bill is completely paid for. Through PAYGO, Democrats are fulfilling our promise to live within our means like every household in America is forced to do, and I believe the PAYGO rules, Mr. Speaker, made this a leaner, meaner and better bill, despite the complexities that the new rules presented at times.

We pledged to stop writing blank checks with reckless abandon and shouldering our country's needs on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this legislation adheres to the spirit of PAYGO, proving that it can be done.

Mr. Speaker, our farmers have the capacity for immeasurable innovation and success, and they deserve the Federal Government's commitment that's included in this bill by supporting this farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to telling my constituents of the 18th District of California that the United States Congress has accomplished what many thought was an impossible feat in coming to an agreement on a farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly and wholeheartedly urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington complains that nearly 75 percent of this bill goes to a nutrition program. I would submit to the House that if Republican policies with regard to the economy weren't what they were we wouldn't have to be increasing the nutritional support for our citizens.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from California. I would just like to reiterate that this bill and this rule fully complies with the Senate PAYGO rules and it is totally in keeping with the spirit of PAYGO by complying with the 2007 PAYGO baselines as my Republican colleague, Mr. Neugebauer, said last night when he presented the rule to the committee as the Republican ranking member at that time, and his words were that this bill is fully PAYGO compliant.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, without which we could not have done this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who absolutely has been an undying advocate on behalf of those who need it the most, those who are going hungry in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I was remiss when I introduced my colleague, Alcee Hastings from Florida, for his undying support and work with regard to specialty crops. He was joined in this effort by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney) who has been just a stalwart in helping me get the specialty crop title into this bill. And I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time is remaining on either side.

At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman without whose leadership on the bill we simply would not be bringing the bill to the floor today, the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a once-in-a-lifetime bill that will meet our country's needs. Every major group, commodities, specialty crops, nutrition groups, conservationists and others support this bill. A ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill is a vote for America's hungry, a vote for our environment, a vote for United States' energy independence, and a vote to deliver on our long-standing commitment to rural America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of our colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying bill. 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. 1189 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. That upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker

shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the

House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the

state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5984)

to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the

limited continuation of clean energy production incentives

and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to

prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result from a

lapse in the tax law. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and contolled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. All points of order against

provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill

shall be in order except any amendment which the proponent

asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the

national average price per gallon of regular unleaded

gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of

oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge. Such amendments shall be considered

as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,

shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject

to a demand for division of the question in the House or in

the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such

amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today to honor a woman who has become a fixture in local politics in my District. Sandy Lucas is not an elected official or a paid political operative, but has become what can only be described as the voice of common sense in our community.

After graduating from the University of Arizona, with a bachelor's degree in history, Sandy began her career in public service in 1974 as Director of the Counseling Job Corps in San Jose. In 1975, she became Director of Polydrug Abuse and Heroin Detox for Santa Clara County. By 1976, Sandy had obtained her license as a Marriage and Family Therapist. She currently serves as the Director of Family and Probate for Stanislaus County.

While Sandy's list of professional achievements is lengthy, it is her accomplishments as a volunteer on local government boards that make her the ``go to'' person when gauging the pulse of the community. As a member of the Modesto School Bond Committee, she worked to successfully pass much needed school bonds. She has served for 6 years on the Stanislaus County Commission on Aging, and most recently acted as a member of the Modesto City Charter Review Committee, working hard to update antiquated rules governing a city of more than 200,000.

Sandy Lucas has also been active on a statewide level with the Democratic Party. She spent several years as a California Democratic Party Regional Director, ensuring the voice of California's Central Valley was heard by party leaders.

Being heard has never been a problem for Sandy Lucas. Her quick wit, tempered reactions, and oh so colorful responses to various occurrences in our community have garnered the respect of area leaders. Sandy's training as a mediator has served her well in politics and given her the ability to see highly divisive issues from every angle, thus bringing workable solutions to the table.

On May 2, 2008, Sandy will receive the coveted Liberty Bell Award from the Stanislaus County Bar Association for all of the aforementioned reasons. Sandy has been a gem to our community, and I am honored, Madam Speaker, to have this opportunity to thank her for her selfless service and wish her the very best in continued community involvement.

Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest respect and admiration that I rise today to honor the late Mr. John Joseph Souza. As a lifelong resident of Atwater, California, John was not only a beloved member of our community, but he was an endearing, personal friend of my family. At the age of 77, John Souza passed away on Thursday, April 10, 2008.

John was born in Atwater, California on August 8, 1930 to John and Palmira Souza. He attended Atwater Jordan Elementary School, and then Livingston High School where he gradated in 1948. In 1951 John served in the U.S. Army in Korea, and in the years following he married the love his life, Madeline Perry. Upon beginning their life together, John and Madeline purchased the Souza family's ranch. John operated the Souza Dairy for 16 years, owned Souza's Automotive Service in Atwater for 8 years, and then founded Souza's Bailbonds Company, which has been open for the last 34 years. As his lifetime of service reflects, John was a true entrepreneur who happily wore a number of different hats on a daily basis. Not only an avid businessman in the community, John was also a devoted member of St. Anthony's Catholic Church, participated in a number of fraternal organizations, served as Director of the Merced Trade Club, was a member of the Winton V.F.W. and was a Director of the California Bailbond Association of America. In addition to his extensive community service, John was also a member of the U.S. Marshals Posse, the Merced County Sheriffs Posse and Merced County Search and Rescue. He thoroughly enjoyed being a member of the Sheriff's Posse with his horse Blaze, with whom he traveled to Washington, D.C. to ride in the Presidential Inauguration Parade for President Bush.

Throughout their lifetime together, John and Madeline traveled to every state in the country, as well as a number of international destinations including Portugal, Mexico, Italy, Canada, Greece and France. Traveling was a favorite pastime for John and Madeline, often venturing down an unknown road just to see where it would take them. In addition to his passion for travel, John's Portuguese heritage meant the world to him. He was a true historian of Portuguese information surrounding the Valley and was fond of attending any Festa he could.

John was preceded in death by his son, John Joseph Souza, Jr. He is survived by his

loving wife of 57 years, Madeline; his son Thomas and daughter-in-law Molly; his son Daniel and daughter-in-law Julia; his grandsons Thomas John Souza Jr. and Timothy Manuel Souza; his brother David Souza and sister Mamie Angelo; and numerous nieces and nephews. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor and privilege to join the Souza family and my hometown of Atwater in remembering my dear friend, John Joseph Souza. His life was dedicated to his family, friends and service to his community, and in his passing we have lost greatly.

Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today in recognition of the Central Valley Health Network as they celebrate their tenth anniversary. Comprised of 13 private, non-profit community health center systems, the Central Valley Health Network currently operates 116 clinic sites throughout 20 counties in California, providing high quality health care to those most in need.

In the 10 years since its inception, the Central Valley Health Network has provided families throughout the region with health care that is cost-effective, accessible, comprehensive, coordinated, compassionate, and culturally competent. Serving more than 530,000 patients, the Central Valley Health Network facilitates 2.1 million patient visits annually, providing care for low-income individuals, of which 75 percent are at or below the Federal poverty level, 50 percent of whom are enrolled in Medi-Cal, and 35 percent who are uninsured. Combined, it is the chief health care system for low-income families throughout the Central Valley, and in many communities the Central Valley Health Network's clinics are the only primary health care option available.

The Central Valley of California consistently experiences far greater physician shortages and dramatically increased rates of chronic diseases than other regions in the State. To address these imbalances, the Central Valley Health Network's mission is to support their member community health center systems in the effective delivery of high quality accessible health care with a special focus on advocacy for attaining optimal health for the medically underserved. Furthermore, the Central Valley Health Network's presence in the region has made a significant impact in local economies, generating over $200 million in Federal funds and creating over 2,000 jobs.

The Central Valley Health Network contributes greatly to the improvement of the overall quality of life for families throughout the Central Valley of California. Madame Speaker, I respectfully ask my colleagues to rise and join me in thanking everyone involved with the Central Valley Health Network for the work they do each and every day to provide the people and families of our communities with essential health care services. There is no more important or rewarding work than helping a fellow citizen in need, and through their dedicated and compassionate efforts, thousands of lives have been touched. We all owe them a great debt of gratitude, and I am proud to represent their efforts in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that President Bush is out of touch with today's consumer. First, he refused to accept that the economy was heading in a downturn. Now, it takes a reporter's question for him to realize that gas prices in this country will soon reach $4 a gallon at the pump. Despite being reported in newspapers around the Nation, President Bush has told reporters last week that he didn't realize that $4 gas was possible. The President's energy record leaves a

great deal to be desired. Since he took office, gas prices have doubled, and home heating costs have tripled.

While President Bush remains out of touch, House Democrats acted last week to ease some of that burden. We passed legislation that repeals unnecessary tax subsidies to big oil companies, which reported record profits last year and last month. Instead, the subsidies will go towards tax incentives for clean, renewable energy.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush should recognize that his energy policy has failed the American people, and that he should join us in supporting legislation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2571) to make technical corrections to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

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

Senate bill 2571 provides a technical correction to the reauthorization of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act approved by the House and the Senate and that was signed by the President on October 9, 2007.

As my colleagues know, EPA is currently responsible for regulating the sale, use, and distribution of pesticides. In order to facilitate and expedite the approval process, pesticide manufacturers and other registrants have supplemented EPA's annual budget for a number of years. It's a win-win process for both the manufacturer and the end user and a clear example of good government at its best.

Unfortunately, EPA has interpreted the PRIA reauthorization approved by Congress to collect fees for chemicals that are not part of the Interregional Project Number 4, a popular research program that assesses tolerance levels for pest management chemicals applied on specialty crops. These IR-4 chemicals have historically been exempt from fees prior to the enactment of the PRIA reauthorization, and it was not the intention of the House nor the Senate to suddenly assess fees on all these chemicals.

This bill will simply restore the status quo for these particular products and reassert congressional intent.

Because the program fees are being assessed on IR-4 chemicals as we speak, it is vitally important to address this situation immediately. While the farm bill would be the natural vehicle to make this technical correction, EPA is currently unable to process any registration applications without these fees being paid. Therefore, while this fix is not controversial, it is extremely time sensitive, and the uncertainty of the farm bill process dictates that Congress must take action now.

Restoring congressional intent by passing this technical correction to PRIA will prevent delays and backups of applications and stop EPA from collecting and then reimbursing the fees for these chemicals.

It is important that we continue to encourage the type of public- private partnerships envisioned in PRIA. I urge my colleagues to support this technical fix and the underlying goals of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague, the

very capable and wise gentleman from Oklahoma who has been a great friend throughout the years that I have been here and thank him for his assistance in this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to speak on the passing of an esteemed colleague and a true friend, former Congressman Tom Lantos.

Tom's dedication, passion, and fervent commitment to human rights will be deeply missed by our Nation and, indeed, around the world. As the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to Congress, Tom fought every day to give voice to the voiceless and make true our commitment to the words ``never again.'' Only 16 when he was rounded up in his native Hungary by the Nazis where he saw most of his family perish, Tom was a living embodiment to the ideals of courage and human rights.

First elected to Congress in 1980 after a distinguished career in academia, Tom was a tireless advocate on behalf of his constituents and a fine public servant. Representing parts of San Francisco as well as his hometown, San Mateo, Tom zealously represented the interests of his District and, speaking as a Member of the California delegation, I was proud to serve with him and call him friend.

While Tom had a remarkable career of over a quarter of a century in Congress, it was his last year as chairman of his beloved House Foreign Affairs Committee that he seemed to relish the most. From that perch, he was able to advance the cause of human rights and to shine a light on long ignored parts of the globe.

Tom is survived by his loving wife Annette, by his two daughters, Annette and Katrina; by 17 grandchildren and 2 great-grandchildren. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 940 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 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 940.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 940 provides for consideration of H.R. 1528, the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order two Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Mr. Bishop of Utah. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 1528, amends the National Trails System Act to designate most of the MMM Trail System as the New England National Scenic Trail.

The MMM Trail System extends from the Massachusetts border with New Hampshire through western Massachusetts and Connecticut toward the Long Island Sound. The highly popular trail system has existed for over 50 years and is predominantly managed and maintained by volunteers.

The trail system travels through important historical landmarks and harbors a range of diverse ecosystems and natural resources, including mountain summits, waterfalls, and critical habitats for endangered species.

In a recent feasibility study, the National Park Service recommended that the trail system be designated as a national scenic trail, with some adjustments and rerouting for a total of 220 miles. However, this study has been out since the spring of 2006; and while no changes are expected, it has been trapped in a giant morass of bureaucratic red tape that has not been finalized.

H.R. 1528 is simply about cutting through this red tape and getting Federal recognition and administrative support for a trail that is already extremely popular and well managed.

H.R. 1528 includes specific language protecting private property rights, and landowner cooperation in the national scenic trail designation is entirely voluntary. All landowners affected by the trail have the opportunity to have the trail rerouted around their property.

Furthermore, since no Federal land is involved, Federal designation of the land has no impact on State or local laws currently in place, including those governing hunting, fishing, or trapping or local zoning or other land use issues.

Madam Speaker, this designation is widely supported. It is supported by

the administration and the local communities across New England, and it has bipartisan congressional support, including the Representatives of all affected districts in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

In closing, I'd like to thank Chairman Rahall, Chairman Grijalva, and Mr. Olver for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor today so we can ensure that America's most treasured resources are protected for future generations.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his kind words that he opened his statement with.

He mentioned throughout the statement that we might not be here if we were under suspension. I feel that under suspension of the rules, we would not be able to hear any of the debate that Mr. Bishop is going to offer on his two amendments. So, we are actually, in fact, allowing Mr. Bishop to make his amendments before the House of Representatives.

I will yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, the gentleman did make that offer in Rules. However, it should be noted that Mr. Bishop is the ranking member of his subcommittee. He had an opportunity to amend this bill in committee. He did not choose to offer but one amendment in committee, is my understanding, and then he came to the Rules Committee at the last minute with seven amendments.

The Rules Committee is allowing two amendments to be offered on the floor today. I think that's a fair hearing for the gentleman.

The gentleman has his own time.

I would like to just get through a few of my points, if I may.

The gentleman also brought up the issue of whether or not this bill has any effect on eminent domain. And I can tell you that there is absolutely no authority in H.R. 1528 for the National Park Service to take land by eminent domain, nor does the Service have any authority in local zoning issues that might affect national scenic trails.

Further, H.R. 1528 explicitly states that ``the United States does not acquire for trail any land or interest in land without the consent of the owner.'' In fact, this bill is an opt-in bill; you have to agree to have your land put into this act and used in this way.

The second part of the gentleman's statement with regard to earmarks, I'd like to just refer the gentleman to the committee report, page 7, the earmark statement. And in the committee report it states that ``H.R. 1528 does not contain any congressional earmarks.'' This is an authorization bill, not an appropriation bill. Further, the report states that it does not contain any limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.'' It states that very clearly in the committee report.

Finally, the bill does allow two private groups that manage the trail currently, and this is the entire point of the bill, to receive Federal technical assistance. And that is in the way of educational experience or technical assistance to manage the trail, not resources to manage the trail.

So, I would say that there is no earmark whatsoever in this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I agree totally with one statement that Mr. Dreier, my colleague and friend from California, said, and that is that Mr. Bishop often comes up with brilliant ideas. Today we are allowing two of those brilliant ideas to be debated on the floor.

With regard to some of the other issues that were raised, I already read into the Record the fact that the committee has certified that there are no earmarks in this bill. Mr. Bishop says, well, there's a potential to have grants later on down the road. My understanding of grants is that they come from the administration, not from Congress. And if we start talking about every grant that is given by the Federal Government or the U.S. Government to the myriad of people who receive them throughout this country, that is a process that Congress has set up for a number of years. That has never before been the definition of an earmark, to my knowledge. So if that's the new definition of earmarks, that's news to me.

But I don't believe, based on the committee's certification, what I have heard, the testimony I have heard, there are any earmarks in this bill. That is what has been reported in the report, and I believe that to be the case.

Secondly, as I have previously stated as well, this bill is a voluntary measure where landowners have the absolute right to opt in or out. And so I can't see where there is coercion. There is agreement among the delegations in the affected regions, our House colleagues.

I believe that this is a good measure and it should go forward, and I would encourage my colleagues to support the rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his debate today. I disagree vehemently that his rendition of the earmark process is an accurate one. I don't believe that last Congress's rules on earmarks were stricter and more transparent than this Congress's. In fact, I believe that the country knows that the earmark process has gotten more transparent under the Democrats and that we have far fewer earmarks in the current process than we had previously. I think voters spoke about that in the last election.

I would just go on to say, Madam Speaker, that 40 years ago, the National Trails System Act was established to provide a system of trails for outdoor recreation and the enjoyment of scenic, historic, and naturally significant areas. H.R. 1528 adheres to these very long- established values. It ensures that the sweeping, natural landscapes across New England remain protected and untouched so they may be enjoyed by our children and grandchildren for years to come. It deserves strong support by all Members on the floor today, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier of California is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 940

Offered by Mr. Dreier of California

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) the amendment printed in section 4,

if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee,

which shall be in order without intervention of any point of

order or demand for division of the question, shall be

considered as read and shall be separately debatable for

forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as

follows:

Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following:

(1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or''

at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the

end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding

the following at the end:

``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between

the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to

an order of the House, unless the Majority Leader or his

designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited

tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and

amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident

Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective

item in such list) or a statement that the proposition

contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or

limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional

Record prior to its consideration.''.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, as we prepare to adjourn for the holiday season, we eagerly await the chance to spend time with our loved ones.

Radio music and advertisements offer cheery Jingle Bell tunes, the Christmas tree on the West Lawn has been lit, and we leave with a spirit of benevolence, wishing all a merry Christmas.

But unfortunately, Madam Speaker, not all who like Christmas will have it be merry because of a Grinch mean and scary who vetoes our bills with nary a thought.

The Grinch stole Christmas, Madam Speaker. He's robbed from the WHOS, and there's not a one weaker. And who are the WHOS? Why, any child can tell you--the WHOS are the children, the hungry, the poor, the ones we should help, not shove out the door.

While the tone I take is somewhat lighthearted, the subject matter is serious. The President, at almost every turn, has thwarted our efforts to help the most needy and vulnerable in our society.

First, the President has been callous towards the most vulnerable-- our children, especially foster children.

The President vetoed a 15 million dollar increase for those children who surrounded by domestic violence are forced to take the safest way out--run. These youth depend on programs authorized under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act that fund homeless shelters and counseling to diffuse conflict at home and enable them to be reunited with their families.

Mr. Speaker, the 5 million dollar increase Congress approved for the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program--also vetoed by the President.

To the orphaned foster youth who are denied services when the clock strikes midnight on their 18th birthday, the President turns his back on them. Homeless, without health insurance, they become just another statistic to be quoted in the list of ``throwaway'' youth.

The President denied the sum of a mere 500,000 dollars to create a national registry on child abuse, a provision Congress passed with bipartisan support in the Adam Walsh Act.

Currently, Madam Speaker, child abusers need only to cross state lines to avoid prosecution and find employment as teachers or daycare providers. This national registry would track the offenses of predators to prevent abuse, and it is unconscionable to deny funds for this program.

That is not all that's been taken from under the tree. It's just the beginning, I hope you will see.

We demand so much from parents this day in age, Madam Speaker. They balance full-time parenting with full-time employment, often, at the cost of family life.

They make this sacrifice with the promise of providing a better future for their children. They send them to school and trust it will better equip them for tomorrow.

However, this President has turned a blind eye towards the education of our children.

The President's priorities translate into budget cuts for programs like Head Start, who will be forced to shut their programs door on 34,000 children.

Despite Congressional intent to increase funding for the 6.9 million children receiving special education, the President wants to reduce that funding and slash K-12 education by 1.3 billion dollars.

Madam Speaker, the President's priorities must not be allowed to stand. All children, no matter what their station in life, deserve a quality education and this Congress will continue to fight to ensure we honor our obligations to them.

And while the President will enjoy many Christmas carols this season, he wants to eliminate funding for Universal Newborn Hearing programs.

Madam Speaker, I could go on and on. This short, but illuminating list, best highlights the differences between the priorities of our two parties.

Congress will continue to fight for these vital programs and to ensure that the least among us are well protected. As we adjourn for the holidays and celebrate the season with our families, let us get in the Christmas spirit and rededicate ourselves to the welfare of the most vulnerable.

``And the Grinch with his Grinch-feet ice cold in the snow, stood puzzling and puzzling, how could it be so? It came without ribbons. It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags. And he puzzled and puzzled 'till his puzzler was sore. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before. What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store? What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more.''

Thank you, happy holidays.