Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act. This bill makes drastic changes to our nation's food safety laws that will affect every farmer and rancher in the United States. However, Mr. Speaker, the extent of these changes is unknown, because the full text of this bill was not yet available to Members until the day before the vote.

Our Nation has the safest food supply in the world, Mr. Speaker, and that is because our growers and processors work hard to provide quality products to consumers. While the circumstances surrounding recent food safety violations must be addressed, in nearly every case, these were violations of existing laws and standards. It is imperative that Congress does not rush to use these incidents as an excuse to unnecessarily and dramatically expand federal regulation of our producers and processors.

This is a better bill than the one that came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Yet, I am still concerned about the broad authority this legislation gives to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate on-farm practices for our fruit and vegetable growers. If this bill is signed into law, the FDA will for the first time have the explicit authority to regulate the way produce is grown and harvested.

I am also concerned, Mr. Speaker, with the significant financial burden that the new traceability and record-keeping requirement will have on America's small farmers and agriculture processors. This bill would allow FDA to charge huge fines for even minor paperwork violations that could put smaller operations out of business.

Also of note, is the broad quarantine authority that this bill gives to FDA. While I recognize the need to quarantine the source of food- borne illnesses, this bill would allow the FDA to quarantine wide geographic areas where the source may exist. We know that the FDA can make mistakes over the origin of an outbreak, and this provision could cause devastating economic impacts to growers and processors who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Agriculture is the number one industry in Washington State. Creating jobs and growing our economy is dependent upon supporting our farmers and ranchers--not passing legislation that could put them out of business.

I have heard some of my colleagues say that we can rely on the Senate to address the flaws in this bill. I believe that the House of Representatives owes it to our growers and processors to take the time to do this right, and not rely on the Senate to fix our mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats in this body are negotiating behind closed doors the most sweeping changes to American health care since the 1960s. An article on CNN's Web site today explains the dangers of what happens when one party negotiates with itself in secret.

Entitled ``Five Freedoms You Would Lose in Health Care Reform,'' it explains that under the plan drafted by House Democrats, families will lose choices and control of their health care. According to the CNN story, Americans would, one, lose the freedom to choose what is in their insurance plan; two, lose the freedom to be rewarded for healthy living or pay their real costs; three, lose the freedom to choose high deductible coverage; four, lose the freedom to keep their existing plan; and, five, lose the freedom to choose their doctors.

Americans need more health care choices, not fewer. House Democrats should scrap this plan and negotiate in a bipartisan effort to help increase choices and reduce costs.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution has been adequately explained by the gentlewoman from Guam. I would like to add that it is my hope that this resolution reminds the American people that public lands are theirs to fully enjoy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1376 would designate a national monument in the middle of the city of Waco in Texas. I do not necessarily oppose the designation, but I do oppose the legislation as it is written because it lacks language protecting the property rights on lands adjacent to the monument. The National Park Service has a history of interfering with the use of lands it does not own. During the committee markup, Congressman Rob Bishop of Utah offered a commonsense amendment that limited the Park Service's control to the boundaries of the proposed monument and prohibited the Park Service from designating buffer zones on private lands. The chairman of the subcommittee opposed the amendment, stating that the concept of buffer zones did not exist and was nowhere to be found in law. However, a quick search of the Park Service's own Web site finds 78 references to buffer zones, including references in Federal law. The amendment that was offered by Mr. Bishop was narrowly defeated by a 22-20 vote, largely along party lines. So without language protecting private landowners adjacent to the monument, which includes homeowners, farmers and, for that matter, even Baylor University, passing this legislation would be, in my view, irresponsible. This is not just a vague hypothetical concern. In the Park Service's own study, recommending the designation of the Waco monument, the issue of controlling neighboring lands through local zoning is specifically mentioned; and the door is left open for the Park Service to push for restrictions on adjacent private property. That's the part that concerns me with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1376 until language is added protecting property rights in the buffer zone.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I have no problem with the designation. I thought you described it very, very well. You've heard those of us from the West talk about private property rights, like these things only happen in the western part of the United States. But examples like these where these buffer zones have infringed on priority property rights, as a matter of fact, have happened all over the United States, in Michigan, obviously in the West, and even in the Smoky Mountains here in the eastern part of the United States. I know the gentleman is sensitive to that. I was disappointed that the amendment failed by a very close margin. But the reason that was offered for why it didn't pass was because there is no precedence in law. In fact, there is precedence in law.

I suspect your legislation is going to pass on its merits, notwithstanding my opposition to it. But I would certainly advise the gentleman as this process moves forward to look at this very closely because this is not an isolated example. And I know that that would be an unintended consequence of what you intended with this, especially as I understand this legislation sitting in Waco.

If the gentleman would yield.

No. I have to say, I have not. Now having said that, there may be somebody on the staff that has. I can tell the gentleman that I have not heard specifically on this. But I just want to point out, there are examples of this in other parts of the country. Again, something that was not anticipated but, in fact, there was an infringement on those private property rights.

I just want to make the point that this bill was marked up in July and, as I mentioned in my opening statement, there was an amendment that was offered, so the issue has been known. But like I say, this Member has not heard directly from people in Waco, but maybe others have. But again, I was talking in a larger sense, because we've seen examples of this in other parts of the country.

So I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, again, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I've talked about this and it is a legitimate concern.

And so I would inquire of the gentlelady from Guam if she has anymore speakers.

If there are no more requests for time, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the reservoir that supplies the water to Blowing Rock, North Carolina, is on land that was donated to the Blue Ridge Parkway over 50 years ago. After the Park Service acquired the land, the reservoir continued to operate under an informal agreement until recently when the National Park Service decided to require an annual special use permit for the site and imposed water rights fees. The Park Service pronouncement means that the town faced the prospect of renting its longstanding sole source of water 1 year at a time and being charged for the water.

So I want to compliment Dr. Foxx for this legislative solution to the problem. Her bill will allow Blowing Rock to own and manage its 20-acre municipal water supply, rather than accessing it through the Park Service permitting process.

I must say, though, that I am dismayed because of the price extracted by the National Park Service because it forced the town to come up with 192 acres in exchange for 20. I think that is a bad ratio. Nevertheless, I support this legislation. I think it's a good piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the author of this legislation, the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time, and so I'll yield back my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 556, a bill which will take a threatened species and place its management needs above others, even if those species are in danger of becoming extinct.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the agency with management over the southern sea otter and most other animals listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Service should be afforded the opportunity to make its own determination on how best to use Endangered Species Act recovery funds.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe Congress should get into the habit of promoting one species' needs over other more endangered species. We should let the management agency do its job, guided by the Endangered Species Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 509, which was introduced by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), a member of the resources committee, will extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to issue conservation grants to assist highly endangered marine sea turtles.

Under this measure, the authorization of appropriations is extended an additional 5 years at existing funding levels. Since 2004, 78 conservation projects have been approved to assist the imperiled green, hawksbill, leatherback, loggerhead, and Olive Ridley marine sea turtles. These projects are making a real difference in the ongoing struggle to save these species.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 509. Again, I want to compliment my friend and colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Brown.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure, I am submitting the following information regarding projects that I support for inclusion in H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, 2010.

Amount: $16,454,000

Account: Bureau of Reclamation's Water and Related Resources

Entity receiving funds: Columbia Basin Project, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, located at 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho 83706.

Description: These funds will be used for ongoing operations of the Columbia Basin Project.

Amount: $150,000

Account: Bureau of Reclamation's Water and Related Resources

Entity receiving funds: Washington Investigations Program, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, located at 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho 83706.

Description: These funds will be used to support ongoing engineering and planning studies of Bureau of Reclamation projects in Washington state.

Amount: $8,512,000

Account: Bureau of Reclamation's Water and Related Resources

Entity receiving funds: Yakima Project, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, located at 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho 83706.

Description: These funds will be used for ongoing operations of the Yakima Basin Project.

Amount: $8,500,000

Account: Bureau of Reclamation's Water and Related Resources

Entity receiving funds: Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, located at 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho 83706.

Description: These funds will be used for ongoing programs of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project.

Amount: $3,000,000

Account: Bureau of Reclamation's Water and Related Resources

Entity receiving funds: Odessa Subarea Special Study, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, located at 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho 83706.

Description: These funds will be used to continue efforts to identify solutions and alternatives for local irrigators dependent on depleting Odessa wells.

Amount: $1,500,000

Account: Bureau of Reclamation's Water and Related Resources

Entity receiving funds: Yakima River Basin Water Supply Study, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, located at 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho 83706.

Description: These funds will be used to support the development of a plan to meet the water storage and supply needs of the Yakima River Basin.

Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? Americans have lost millions of jobs in the last 6 months. The unemployment rate today is approaching 10 percent nationwide. And amid all of this, Democrats are proposing a government takeover of health care that would increase taxes, eliminate choices, cut Medicare, force Americans out of their current plans and place billion-dollar job- killing fines and mandates on small businesses, the job creators.

Studies estimate that nearly 5 million jobs will be lost as a result of taxes on small business under this Democrat plan.

There is a better solution, Mr. Speaker. Rather than penalizing struggling small businesses, Congress must make it easier for them to afford health benefits. We must increase choices, make health costs deductible, expand health savings accounts, end waste, fraud and abuse and control unnecessary lawsuits that drive up costs for everyone.

I support reform, Mr. Speaker, that lets Americans keep their doctors, lowers costs and keeps medical decisions between the patient and their doctor.

Mr. Speaker, the nuclear weapons production program at Hanford played a critical role in our nation's defense for decades--securing victories in World War II and the Cold War. Today, the 586-square-mile Hanford Site, which is located in the congressional district that I represent and in the community that I've called home for over 50 years, is undergoing the largest and most complex nuclear waste cleanup effort in the world.

While nuclear cleanup will continue at Hanford for decades, the local community is already looking towards life post-cleanup and is actively engaged in discussing its future and economy once this massive undertaking is completed. Clearly, the possible beneficial use of portions of land on this massive site to diversify the economy and ensure a robust post-cleanup future are options that must be open and available. As just one possible example, consideration is being given by the Department of Energy and local communities to proposals to use a piece of Hanford lands for an Energy Park. Other ideas on how to use these suitable lands include nuclear activities such as medical isotope production and uranium enrichment for fuel rod production that would power nuclear energy reactors.

At a time when decisions about future uses of lands on the Hanford Site have yet to be made, it is critical that this Congress and the federal government maintain flexibility in order to keep all options on the table--and not enact legislation that could complicate or prohibit future activities, thereby preempting the very conversations that are underway today.

Mr. Speaker, as originally introduced, H.R. 2729 would have designated the Hanford Site and surrounding lands as a permanent protected National Environmental Research Park, or NERP.

While I believe it appropriate for portions of the Hanford Site to conduct activities consistent with the NERP mission, I have very serious concerns about rushing through permanent decisions on Hanford lands via legislation that was introduced last month with zero input from either the Tri-Cities community or their elected Representative.

That's why I have been working with the Science Committee on trying to identify and agree on ways to modify and improve the bill to fully protect the unique and complex Hanford site. My overriding goal in pursuing modifications was to avoid serious unintended consequences that could very well result from H.R. 2729, including the creation of yet another overlapping land use management authority at Hanford and the permanent lockdown of future land use decisions.

I have made several suggestions to the Committee including language to: (1) enable the Secretary of Energy to modify the boundaries of the NERP, (2) exclude privately-owned lands and state lands, (3) ensure that nothing in the bill will restrict, limit or condition the ability of the Department to lease, convey or transfer lands, (4) ensure that no new land use or regulatory authority is created, (5) clearly state that this new law could not be used to launch lawsuits, and (6) to make certain that the NERP authorization is aimed at the intent of facilitating long-term research and promoting education outreach, rather than the establishment of a restrictive land use designation that could block or stifle future decisions. I support the stated intent of this legislation's authors and proponents to encourage research and education, but I fear that the language of the bill as written could be interpreted to cause real harm to the future of Hanford and the local community.

I very much appreciate the consideration of Ranking Member Hall, and the willingness of Chairman Gordon, Subcommittee Chairman Baird and Representative Lujan to listen and discuss my concerns over the past week. In the end, clarifying language that I felt was necessary to protect the interests of those I was elected to represent was not agreeable to the Committee, and they instead chose to remove Hanford from the bill altogether.

While I believe we all would have preferred an outcome that was acceptable to all Members, which did not prove possible in the past week, and the removal of Hanford from the bill is an appropriate course of action.

It took many years for the federal government to produce the massive volumes of nuclear waste at Hanford, and it will take many more years to complete the cleanup of these wastes. There is absolutely no reason to rush through legislation that could make cleanup at Hanford more difficult or take away the flexibility to make decisions on the future of the Site and the surrounding communities.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I want to respond to my friend from Massachusetts. He talks about deficits, and where were we? Let me point out to this gentleman, the highest deficit under George W. Bush's administration was in 2004, and that was right after we built up our forces to go into Afghanistan and Iraq.

It was slightly over $400 billion. Under your first watch, your first watch as the majority in this Congress, the deficit was $460 billion. This year it is projected to be $1.8 trillion. And here we are today on the floor talking about a bill to expand that deficit another $700 million.

Boy, talk about--well, I can't say the word. But talk about less than truthfulness. It certainly comes from the other side of the aisle on this issue.

The gentleman from Massachusetts has over 15 minutes, and he doesn't even want to engage in a colloquy with somebody here that is willing to stand up and at least engage.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

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

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, across our Nation, Americans are struggling to pay their bills; 9.5 percent of Americans are out of work. This is the highest unemployment rate that America has experienced in over a quarter of a century. President Obama and his economic advisers expect the number of jobless to climb higher, into the double digits.

After bailouts for Wall Street and a stimulus bill that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and still isn't creating the jobs that the Democrats promised, the national deficit has now hit $1 trillion, and that is an historic and worrying amount that President Obama says keeps him awake at night.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting. Our economy is in a recession. Two million jobs have been lost since the stimulus bill passed this Congress in February. Government spending is going through the roof. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that since January, the Obama and Pelosi budgets will lead to increased spending of $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years.

So, Mr. Speaker, with this backdrop, what is the response of this Democrat Congress to month after month of lost jobs, record unemployment, out-of-control spending, and skyrocketing deficits? Their response is to vote on a bill to create a $700 million welfare program for wild horses and burros.

Mr. Speaker, if the American people want an illustration of just how out of touch this Congress has become on spending, they need to look no further than what's happening here on the floor of the House with this issue of wild horses and burros.

In the last Congress, the House passed legislation to ban the commercial slaughter of wild horses and burros. It was a one-page bill, and CBO estimated that it would cost taxpayers less than $500,000 a year. Now we're just 2 years from that time period and we're looking at a bill that, again, bans slaughter of these animals but then proceeds to spend a CBO estimate of $700 million to create a new welfare program for wild horses.

Mr. Speaker, that's right. Under the fiscal plan of this Democrat Congress the amount they want to spend on wild horses from the last Congress, which was $500,000, to this Congress, is $700 million.

So let's take a look at what the taxpayers' dollars would be spent on in

this vast increase of public spending. It would mandate a wild horse census be conducted every 2 years. It provides enhanced contraception and birth control for these horses. It would spend and somehow acquire or move 19 million acres of public and private land for the specific purpose of giving these horses more places to roam around.

Mr. Speaker, 19 million acres is roughly the size of the distinguished chairman's State in West Virginia. That's the size of what we're talking about. And after we do that, Mr. Speaker, $5 million will then be spent to repair the damage that these horses will do on these lands. And then, of course, there are new mandates that government bureaucrats perform home inspections before Americans can adopt a wild horse. That's the spending that would be encompassed in this $700 million.

So again, just to repeat, just to be sure that everybody understands, the taxpayers are being asked to buy up millions of acres of land for the enjoyment of wild horses, and then taxpayers will have to pay $5 million a year to repair the damage that these horses will do to those lands.

Mr. Speaker, I must say only in Washington, D.C., does this make sense. Our country is in the middle of the worst recession in a half century. Over 14.5 million Americans are unemployed and can't find jobs. How in the world can the Democrats in this Congress hold a vote on this bill?

Americans are hurting. Republicans are focused on creating the jobs in this country, but this Democrat Congress seems to be more worried about hundreds of millions of dollars for wild burros and wild horses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) who has an absolute hands-on experience with the issue that we're dealing with here today. She's also a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my friend from Utah, I just would point out to my friend from Virginia that the amendment that I am going to offer later on is precisely word for word a bill that he voted on 2 years ago.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, let me repeat that when America is hurting, we should be addressing those issues in which to try to resolve those problems and those issues that are making America hurt. Unemployment is at 9.5 percent, and President Obama says it could go into double digits in the near future.

And so what is our response to that? Our response is to, unlike 2 years ago, address this issue in a different manner, to address it at least partially the same way, but add another $700 million for, as I mentioned, and the distinguished chairman acknowledged that we would mention, welfare for horses.

I don't think that that is the proper way we should be debating, given the economic environment we have in this country. Yet that is precisely where this bill goes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give credit to my friend and chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for the creativity that is exhibited in the manager's amendment.

On the one hand, this manager's amendment is an outright admission that we can't afford this costly new welfare program for wild horses. And then on the other hand, this amendment doesn't delete, erase, strike out or eliminate even a single page, section or word from this bill.

Somehow, we are to believe that adding four little words to this 20- page bill, without deleting anything from it, somehow makes the CBO- estimated price tag of $700 million magically go away. Even with this manager's amendment, Mr. Speaker, the pricing remains.

This manager's amendment doesn't eliminate the sections from the bill to restore wild horses and burros to 19 million acres of land. By the way, it is an area, as we have said before, larger than the State of West Virginia. But just to put this in perspective, it is also larger than the combined area of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut and New Jersey. So we are not talking about a small piece of land. We are talking about a huge area.

The CBO estimates that complying with the new policies in this bill and restoring horses to this 19 million additional acres will cost over $700 million. Now, the chairman tries to explain that all we are doing is changing this requirement to a goal.

The American people, I think, are not going to breathe any easier when they hear that Congress has a goal of spending $700 million to create welfare programs for wild horses and burros.

So, Mr. Speaker, the manager's amendment doesn't change the real plan in the bill at all. The plan is to spend $700 million for welfare for wild horses and burros.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to call this my amendment because actually it was written by Chairman Rahall. This is the exact text of H.R. 249 that passed the House in the last Congress. It passed the House in April of 2007. It bans the commercial slaughter of wild horses and burros. It is less than one page in length, and CBO estimated in the last Congress that it would cost under $500,000 a year.

Members of this House voted for this bill just 2 years ago, and at that time, Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate nationwide was 4.3 percent.

Fast forward to today, when the unemployment rate today has more than doubled to 9.5 percent and is estimated by officials in the Obama administration to go into double digits in the near future.

With this background, Mr. Speaker, we are now considering a bill that bans the slaughter of wild horses and creates a new $700 million welfare program for wild horses and burros. This House, Mr. Speaker, can choose between banning slaughter of wild horses for less than $500,000, which is what my substitute would do, or banning the slaughter of wild horses with a $700 million price tag, which is the subject of the underlying bill. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very easy choice.

Let me repeat again. The vote for the Hastings substitute would ban horse slaughter at a cost of $500,000 a year. H.R. 1018 bans horse slaughter, just like my substitute, but creates a new welfare program for $700 million. I think, in this economic atmosphere that we are in, the best option is to adopt my substitute.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, Mr. Speaker, I voted against that bill 2 years ago because I think there has to be an option for slaughter. But given the option today of spending an extra $700 million or spending less than $500,000 and still banning slaughter, I think that is the proper way to go and that is precisely what my substitute does. And so I would urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of my friend, the distinguished chairman of the committee, if he is prepared to close after I close?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat again: My substitute is a substitute that is identical to the bill that passed this House in April of 2007, and the cost at that time was $500,000. The underlying bill that we are debating today has essentially those same provisions plus a price tag of $700 million, a huge difference between the two. I think, due to the economic times that we are in right now, the most prudent way for this Congress to act is to go with the lesser amount of money, and that's precisely what my substitute does.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one other point.

The distinguished chairman in his manager's amendment made some different calculations as to the $700 million and as to the 19 million acres that were to be part of this bill. I just want to make a point. The CBO has not scored that one way or the other, but if an absolute figure of acquiring or of moving around 19 million acres costs $700 million, then only logic would suggest that it's going to be precisely the same amount of money. So I just want to make a point that the CBO has not estimated the score of the manager's amendment.

The difference here in the debate still is the difference, during these economic times we're in, between spending 700 million taxpayer dollars on welfare for horses or spending $500,000 to ban the slaughter of wild horses and burros. I think the latter that I spoke about is a better way to go, and I would urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Pastor.

Mr. Chairman, Hanford is the world's largest nuclear cleanup site. The wastes at Hanford are a result of our Nation's nuclear weapons production program that secured our victories in World War II and the Cold War. Hanford cleanup cannot sustain continued reductions without jeopardizing progress, breaking existing legally binding commitments to the State and increasing long-term costs to taxpayers. Achieving cleanup progress requires steady, stable, adequate funding each year for all projects at Hanford, including the tank farms, the waste treatment plant, groundwater protection, and the River Corridor project, which is responsible for stopping contaminants from reaching the Columbia River, shrinking the site by 95 percent, and represents the highest priority work for Hanford's Richland Operations office. I appreciate Mr. Pastor's attention to this issue and assistance in making adjustments as this bill went through the committee process. These adjustments are a step in the right direction and will have a meaningful impact at Hanford, with full funding provided for the Office of River Protection.

I would like to ask Mr. Pastor for a commitment to continue to work with me as the final Energy and Water bill is developed.

Thank you for your commitment on this and for your commitment to nuclear waste cleanup at all the sites. I look forward to continuing to work with you. Obviously the invitation is open for you. Mr. Frelinghuysen has been at Hanford, but I certainly invite you. It is something to see firsthand. I thank you for your commitment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that seeks to expand hydropower in the western United States. For almost a century, Western communities have benefited from this low-cost, renewable and emissions- free resource.

In today's environment, where talk centers around the need to provide clean and environmentally friendly power, there is a clear need to promote the original renewable energy, which is moving water. This amendment is a clear opportunity and first step to do just that.

My amendment seeks to follow up on the progress made in the report authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This report will require the Bureau of Reclamation to determine where new hydropower projects can be added to the agency's existing water supply facilities.

The Bureau of Reclamation is already the second leading hydropower producer in the Nation so it's only natural to require that agency to reassess its hydropower potential.

While the agency failed to look at potential projects on small canals and laterals, it did find six larger opportunities to generate almost 300 megawatts from new hydropower facilities. To date, the Bureau of Reclamation has not implemented one aspect of this report.

If this amendment is adopted, there will no longer be bureaucratic excuses about the necessary resources to begin the installation of new emissions-free resources.

While I'm pleased this amendment was made in order, Mr. Chairman, it only covers part of the hydropower equation. Regrettably, the Democrat leadership did not make my other amendments in order.

One of my other amendments would have decreased carbon emissions by keeping more hydropower resources online. Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation are forced to divert water from hydropower production at some of their dams. This results in a loss of generation that has to be found from some other energy source.

The vast majority of this replacement power is carbon based in the form of coal and natural gas and is much more expensive than hydropower. My amendment, which the Democrat majority chose not to debate on, would have reduced these carbon emissions to help the environment and keep energy affordable by allowing for more hydropower production.

Another amendment would have prohibited the reduction of Federal hydropower if that hydropower backs up other renewable energies, like wind and solar. As almost everybody knows, the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day and the wind doesn't blow all the time.

Because of these indisputable facts, wind and solar energy need a backup, or a firmed-up, in energy speak, as a base resource. In my home region of the Pacific Northwest, the Federal dams are the models of the backup electricity generation when it comes to wind generation.

In fact, in December of last year, some of the turbines didn't produce electricity, wind turbines, for 11 straight days. Yet the only reason that the lights stayed on was because of the backup electricity provided by hydropower.

My amendment, which was also rejected by the Democrat majority, would have prohibited the loss of hydropower needed to back up these renewable energy sources.

So, in conclusion, the Democrat majority is sending a mixed message by not allowing amendments to protect our existing Federal hydropower, yet allowing an amendment to increase a limited amount of hydropower resources. I appreciate that. The American people deserve to see a full debate about hydropower, the original emissions-free and renewable energy. Nevertheless, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman, the distinguished subcommittee chairman and the distinguished ranking member for accepting this amendment.

I just simply wanted to point out that had we been under regular order, we could have probably enhanced hydropower with the two other amendments that were not made in order.

But nevertheless, this is an important step. It is something that we need to recognize, because I firmly believe that an energy plan that includes all of

the above is what the American people understand and what they accept.

And with that, I appreciate the gentleman for accepting my amendment.

I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1044, but I do regret that sadly so many of the men who are being memorialized by this legislation are not alive to witness this action today. Time has robbed us of many who survived the explosion. We should all be thankful that the Almighty blessed us with men like those who sacrificed in so many ways at the Port Chicago magazine.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no more speakers on my side, and if the gentlelady is the last speaker on that side, I yield back the balance of my time.