Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend from Florida if she has any more speakers on her side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find that we are debating a rule that is rather ironic because the underlying bill that this rule would make in order is a bill about discrimination and ending discrimination, and yet the very rule, the very rule that we are debating, which makes three

amendments in order, is a discriminatory rule because it does not treat all three amendments equal.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a vote on the previous question, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will show their support for having a vote on amendment No. 3, which would expand the bill's protections to persons discriminated against based on gender identity. This is defined in the amendment as the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other characteristics of an individual with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth.

As I said, those voting ``no'' on the previous question will be able to vote on this question. Those Members who vote ``yes'' on the previous question will be showing their support for denying Americans, through their representatives, a voice on this issue.

Again, if the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule by striking that provision in the language that denies having to seek unanimous consent to offer to withdraw the vote. If the previous question is defeated, the House will still be able to consider the employment nondiscrimination bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this rule, as it stands, discriminates against amendments made in order. My colleagues who entered into the debate today said they are against discrimination; therefore, I urge them to vote ``no'' on the previous question and for equality.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great frustration that I must speak out in opposition to the US-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.

I am a strong supporter of fair trade and have voted to support every trade agreement during my time in Congress. The benefits of these agreements are clear. They lower barriers and open new markets for Central Washington farmers, and they create new opportunities for manufacturers and producers in Washington state and across the nation. Given a chance to compete fairly and our farmers will lead the world in exporting high-quality fruits and vegetables.

That is why I deeply regret the totally unfair provisions in this Peru agreement relating to asparagus. This agreement forces our American asparagus growers to pay the price for a failed anti-drug effort in South America that has actually resulted in more cocaine production.

The Peru Trade Promotion Agreement is preceded by the Andean Trade Preferences Act of 1991. This Act was a unilateral granting of access to American markets for the Andean countries of South America. Its purpose was to allow legal manufacturing and farm exports into our country in an effort to fight and reduce drug production and shipments from these countries. It has been an abysmal failure. Since this one- way trade system was put in place, cocaine production in the Andean countries is actually higher now than when the agreement was put in place.

However, since the Andean Act was enacted, imports of fresh asparagus from Peru went from 4 million pounds a year to over 87 million pounds in 2006. That's a 2000 percent increase! This flood of US-subsidized foreign imports cut asparagus production in Washington state from $200 million in 1990 to approximately $75 million today. American growers were given no transition period. No time to adjust. No consideration whatsoever.

Corporations have closed asparagus processing facilities in the United States, only to reopen them in Peru.

What our government's policies have done is magically create an industry in a foreign country under the flawed logic that Peruvians would grow asparagus instead of cocaine--when the two crops are grown in two totally different regions of that country.

When the United States and Peru completed negotiations on this agreement in December of 2005, I expressed my disappointment with the trade deal and the treatment of asparagus. This was after months of meeting with and encouraging American negotiators to fix it.

I regret that in the almost two years since then, the attention of the Administration to addressing the injustice wrong done to domestic asparagus growers has been non-existent. It's been up to those few of us in Congress, both Representatives and Senators, who represent asparagus producers to work together to try and bring some degree of fairness.

We are making progress and there is movement in the right direction, but we are still a long ways from it becoming reality. I hope we

are successful in our efforts and I would welcome the attention and assistance of the Administration.

American asparagus growers deserve better than to be ignored and placed at a competitive disadvantage by their own government. Until fair treatment and assistance to American asparagus growers is a reality, I am unable to support this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this bill, H.R. 3997, is being considered by the House today and specifically that it includes language similar to the legislation, H.R. 2540, introduced by myself and Congressman Pomeroy.

Our legislation was written to assist the families of members of our military and National Guard who are killed while on active duty. It was developed after Congressman Pomeroy and I each met with Mrs. Victoria Johnson from my central Washington district.

While grieving the loss of her husband, Major Alan Johnson, Victoria discovered that State law treated her husband as a retiree rather than a brave servicemember. Victoria worked to change State law, and with her support, Congressman Pomeroy and I introduced legislation to ensure that servicemembers who die protecting our Nation will have their time on active military duty counted into their employer's retirement benefits.

This simple change ensures that the survivors of our brave servicemembers, like Major Johnson, receive the maximum amount of their loved ones' pension benefits, and are not penalized for their family members' volunteering to serve their country.

This is the right thing to do and I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and namesake, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Sadly, the Democrat leaders today are not taking care of the business of this country. They've failed to get their work done because, in my view, they would rather play political games than do the job that Congress and all of us are elected to do.

The new fiscal year, Madam Speaker, began 37 days ago, on October 1. Yet not one of the annual funding bills to fund the Federal Government has been signed into law. You have to go back 20 years to find a record this bad.

This rule would provide for the consideration of two separate appropriation bills that have been combined together by the Democrat leaders. The Veterans funding bill and funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Education have been forced together in this conference report. These bills have nothing in common, or I should say the only thing they have in common is the fact that they are appropriation bills.

They do have one very, very important difference, the difference being callously exploited by the Democrat leaders. The difference is, Madam Speaker, the Veterans funding bill has the votes to pass this Congress and be signed into law, while the Labor, Health and Education spending bill will be vetoed because it increases spending by $10 billion over the President's request.

Democrat leaders are using the veterans to try and force through their plan of higher spending. Veterans benefits and veterans health care should not be held hostage. More than 400 of the 435 House Members and over 90 of 100 Senators voted for the veterans spending bill. Yet, Democrat leaders have blocked passage of this bill to be sent to the President since September. For 2 months they have kept the veterans waiting.

Madam Speaker, the Democrat leaders know full well this combined spending bill won't be signed into law, but they have chosen to waste our time by having the Congress vote on it anyway. The American people have had enough of this Congress not completing its work and not being serious about the business of this country. The Democrat leaders, in my view, need to stop posturing, stop the game-playing and get serious about doing its job in Congress.

Our veterans, Madam Speaker, have already carried a heavy burden for our country. They shouldn't be used by the new majority to carry the burden of passing this agenda of higher spending.

Separate these two bills. Let Congress pass a clean funding bill for our veterans.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule that provides for the consideration of a combined conference report destined to be vetoed and sustained.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a valuable member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, how much time on both sides?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

My friend from Vermont raised an issue on the issue of combining these bills and suggesting that they are paid for. If the pay-for that they are talking about is what was reflected in the budget document, then that will result over time in the largest tax increase on American citizens in the history of this country. If it is not the largest, it is the second largest.

We will reserve the debate on that, because we are talking about appropriation process tonight, but we will reserve that debate for later on this week when there will be a tax extender bill coming to the floor. We can more fully debate how these pay-fors work.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The distinguished gentleman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, made precisely my point, and he made the point that we have been saying on this side. He made the point that my friend from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) said. He talked about the benefits of the veterans funding bill.

Mr. Wicker spent a great deal of time as ranking member saying how he worked hand in hand in a bipartisan basis, and all we are saying is that we know that bill has the votes to pass the Congress and be signed into law. I thank the gentleman for making the point, because that's the point we are making.

All we are saying is by linking these two bills together, you are going to prolong it because it's going to be vetoed. I will be offering later on a motion to defeat the previous question so we can separate that. I hope the gentleman will vote with us because now we can pass this bill that he extolled in such a very good way.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

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

I have to say that I am disappointed, as I mentioned and others have mentioned, that the Democrat leadership refuses to let the House consider the veterans spending bill, funding bill, separate from funding from the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.

This rule provides for the consideration of one conference report that combines two separate spending bills that will be vetoed by the President, and that veto will be sustained. I believe Members of this House should have an opportunity to vote separately on these two distinct measures.

Therefore, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule and allow a separate vote on each of the spending measures.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can separate this issue and vote ``no'' on the rule if we do not prevail on our previous question so that the Congress can pass a clean funding bill for our veterans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last month the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs approved a bill that included a two-word addition to existing law that effectively blocks the scientific study of ancient skeletal remains discovered on Federal land. This change, tucked into what is being called a technical corrections bill, is very far from a minor ``technical correction.'' It is a fundamental shift in existing law and would overturn a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court, which is second only to the Supreme Court. Such an extreme action should not be hidden within a mostly noncontroversial bill.

In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court expressly allowed the research and scientific study of ancient human remains found in the United States. The Senate bill seeks to quietly erase our Nation's ability to study our past and the planet's human history. The Tri-Cities community in my central Washington district needs no introduction to this issue. They experienced firsthand the court battles that ensued after the 9,300-year-old Kennewick Man remains were discovered on the banks of the Columbia River in 1996. These remains are among the oldest found in North America, and the quality of the remains has the potential to yield researchers greater insight into the early history of man in North America.

A full 8 years after the Kennewick Man's discovery, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in 2004, as I have explained, that the remains were to be studied by scientists. Then, during the last Congress, the Senate first sought its two-word addition in ``technical corrections.'' I introduced a bill to challenge and publicize this action.

Members of the Senate committee decided to try again last month in this Congress. I am forced once again to respond by reintroducing my bill. My bill very simply and plainly ensures the ability for scientific study of truly ancient remains. If this matter is pushed to the Senate, then let us have a full, open and honest debate about what the Senate Indian Affairs Committee would do to scientific study in our country. The effort to quietly slide through such a dramatic change needs to stop. Those who support it should explain why and give a justification.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the introduction of my legislation will help bring balance to what is being done on the other side of the Capitol, and that scientific inquiry is not extinguished through the quiet acts of the United States.

I thank the majority leader for yielding.

Talking about procedure today, I think probably the easiest way to resolve this is we're going to be debating the rule, and of course, if the rule goes down, then that would end the business of the day, and that would be the preferred option from this Member's point of view.

In the event that doesn't happen, and we in fact then debate the SCHIP bill that we saw last night in Rules for the first time, I think it was filed at 7:17, but my point is that we could debate that, and we have 50 Members that are missing. There is a potential for you to roll the vote, not have the vote today but, in fact, roll the vote until next week. That way the debate will have been done. As my friend from Texas said, the issue does not expire until November 16.

So that is an option, it seems to me, to ensure that everybody would have an option to at least vote on this issue.

Obviously that's an option. We are going to have debate on this, and this should be an option that I hope that the majority leader looks at.

I want to thank my friend and colleague on the Rules Committee from Dallas for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time the House has considered legislation to renew the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It is the third time that it is being considered under a closed rule that denies each and every Member of this House an opportunity to offer an amendment to improve it. It's the third time that we Republicans first saw the text the night before it comes up for debate. It is the third time that the Rules Committee has met at all hours of the night on these suddenly appearing bills.

Last night, it was almost until midnight. The second time we met, it wasn't until almost 10 p.m. And the first time we met on this bill, it was from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. in the morning. It is the third time the Democrat bill allows thousands of adults to sign up for children's health care. It's the third time it moves those with private insurance into a government-run program. And it's the third time it doesn't focus on caring for thousands of the poorest kids in our country who are eligible for coverage today but who haven't been signed up by the individual States.

Last night, from 9 p.m. until nearly midnight, the Democrats claimed this bill was really different, that they had changed it to address the problems. But the nonpartisan analysis by the Congressional Budget Office says that they are flat wrong.

Under this bill, we would have more adults on children's health insurance than we do today. SCHIP would actually cost more than the previous bills while covering less kids, and that several million enrollees in the program today would leave their private insurance for tax-funded programs. This bill isn't a true effort to reach a new accord to renew SCHIP. It is a political game being played out at its political worst.

Speaker Pelosi, who just spoke very eloquently on the floor, her Web site still has a statement on it, and I quote from that statement, ``Under Democratic leadership, this Congress is changing the way we do business in Washington--restoring accountability and working together to get the job done.'' I wish this promise wasn't being broken every time the SCHIP bill is brought to the floor of the House, but it is a promise that is being broken.

I want to go on, since the Speaker spoke so eloquently. In her ``New Direction for America,'' she states, ``Regular meetings between Chairs and ranking members of committees and staff should be held.'' That didn't happen on this bill. That's another promise that was broken.

Further, in her ``New Direction for America,'' she states, and I quote, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' That's another promise that was broken.

To my Democrat friends, I must say that you can't reach an agreement by only talking to yourselves. You don't work together by ignoring Republicans, hiding the text of the bill from the Republicans until the night before the debate, shutting down any opportunity for amendments to be made in order to improve the legislation on the floor.

In 1997, a Republican Congress and a Democrat President actually held discussions on creating SCHIP. They talked together, worked together and reached an agreement to provide health insurance to the poorest kids in

our country. That approach was successful, and it created this program. That is the right approach to reach agreement to renew SCHIP and to keep the focus on caring for kids that are most in need.

The tactics last night and today by Democrat leaders aren't about bipartisan talks; they are about partisan posturing. To me, it's terribly disappointing. SCHIP should be renewed, and it will be renewed as soon as an honest effort is made on a bipartisan agreement.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and namesake from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, offered in good faith by my friend and colleague from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), would create a process, and I want to emphasize ``process,'' because that is what this is, for establishing and recognizing a Native Hawaiian government entity that would be empowered to act on behalf of its members with the State and Federal Government.

However, Mr. Speaker, as the Wall Street Journal noted in 2005, the practical effect of granting this status to self-identified Native Hawaiians would be to allow this new class of American citizens to declare, and I quote again from the Wall Street Journal, ``complete legal and territorial independence from the United States and the establishment of a Hawaiian nation-state.''

Mr. Speaker, before this statement is dismissed out of hand as a completely unbelievable statement dreamed up by the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, I should mention that they were not the ones that were making this claim. They were merely reporting on a statement made by the State Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which first acknowledged this fact.

In addition, a recent statement made by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission raised concerns that this legislation, and, again, I quote from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, ``would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide American people into discrete subgroups according to various degrees of privilege.''

Despite the best efforts of this legislation's advocates to compare Native Americans with Native American tribes who govern reservations and often live on them, this legislation would make it possible for our next-door neighbors in Hawaii to suddenly coexist under different legal regimes, a clear violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution's equal protection clause.

Mr. Speaker, because this legislation would grant broad governmental powers to a racially defined group, to include all living descendants. The new Native Hawaiians created by this bill would need no geographic, political or cultural connection to Hawaii, much less a physical connection to a distinct Native Hawaiian community. As the Federal courts have recently explained, this is problematic. Again, I quote the Federal courts: ``The history of the indigenous Hawaiians is fundamentally different from that of indigenous groups in federally recognized Indian tribes in the continental United States.''

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation raises significant constitutional concerns, which have been raised on other bills this year, namely, H.R. 8345, the Hawaiian Ownership Act of 2007, which the House considered in March of this year. The Hawaiian Township Act initially failed under suspension of the rules because 162 Members of the House recognized, and in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Rice v. Cayetano, that the current configuration of Justices would likely strike down the Federal benefits flowing to Native Americans as an unconstitutional racial set-aside, if given the chance.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are legitimate constitutional concerns that must be addressed in the underlying Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the rule makes in order an amendment to be offered by Mr. Flake of Arizona that would attempt to address the constitutional concerns and ensure the underlying legislation complies with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time,

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

I appreciate my friend from Hawaii's clarification on this, and I just want to point out a couple of things in my opening remarks.

I emphasized that this is a process which I think acknowledges the fact that there is a history that goes back to when Hawaii was a kingdom, and so I acknowledge that point. But I simply raise those issues because those issues I think are important when we talk about the United States as a whole, as a government under laws and everybody being treated equal, and these are questions that I think need to be addressed.

I appreciate very, very much my friend's clarification on this. The point that this is a process and the point that there is some lineage going back from a State to a territory to a kingdom probably has some viability to it.

But there are always unintended laws when we write national laws that appeal to one State or one set of people. That is what we have to be cautious about. That is why I simply raise these concerns. The issue is before us. We have a rule and we have made in order an amendment that deals with the 14th amendment. I think that is important to be discussed, and I doubt if this issue will be completely decided here today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation with Republican Leader Boehner, immediately appoint conferees to H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for 2008.

Two days ago a number of news publications, including Roll Call, reported that the Democrat leadership intends to play political games and hold off on sending any appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to serve as ``an extension of their successful public relations campaign on the State Children's Health Insurance Program.'' Roll Call is the one that made that observation on October 22, 2007.

While the House Democrat leadership plays politics on this issue, however, our Nation's veterans are paying the price. The Senate has already done its work and appointed conferees for this bill. And for every day that House Democrats allow the veterans funding bill to languish without conferees for their only political advantage, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million, money that could be used for veterans housing, veterans health care, and other important veterans support activities.

On October 18, American Legion National Commander Marty Conaster, five national vice commanders and all 55 Legion national executive committee members sent Speaker Pelosi a letter pleading with her to put partisanship aside and provide this funding for the troops.

Mr. Speaker, I include a copy of the letter for the Congressional Record.

The American Legion,

Indianapolis, IN, October 18, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: Today ends the Fall meeting of The

American Legion's National Executive Committee, at The

American Legion's National Headquarters in Indianapolis,

Indiana. The National Executive Committee consists of an

elected leader from each of The American Legion's 55

Departments (50 States, the District of Columbia and four

foreign countries). In accordance with The American Legion's

National Constitution and By-laws, the National Executive

Committee serves as The American Legion's governing body.

The National Commander Marty Conatser briefed The National

Executive Committee on an array of issues to include the

status of the VA budget for FY 2008. The fiscal activities of

the 110th Congress--the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution, the

Budget Resolution for FY 2008, and the passage of the

Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs and Related Agencies

Appropriations for FY 2008 were reviewed.

However, in trying to grasp why such a bipartisan bill,

which passed overwhelmingly in both chambers, still hasn't

moved in over a month is rather difficult, especially since

the President has already said he would not veto the bill,

even though it exceeds his recommendations. Understanding why

the appropriations process has come to a complete halt is

difficult. What is preventing the appointment of conferees,

the Conference Committee, or passage of a Conference Report?

We are now in the new fiscal year with no idea when the Mil

Con-VA appropriations will be passed. If history repeats

itself, this standoff may last well into the second quarter

of the fiscal year. This uncertainty is disturbing to not

only The American Legion and other veterans' and military

service organizations, but to every veteran who is dependent

on VA for timely access to quality health care, earned

benefits, and other services provided by a grateful nation.

Madam Speaker, the newest generation of wartime veterans

are reporting to VA medical facilities every day as troops

are returning from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some

will be determined to be service-connected disabled because

of medical conditions incurred or aggravated while on active-

duty. Others may very well have invisible scars that need

attention as soon as possible. As VA welcomes new patients,

the existing patient population cannot be ignored nor should

their health care be rationed due to limited available

resources. There are veterans dependent on VA as their life-

support system.

The American Legion represents 2.6 million wartime

veterans, but also speaks for the 24 million veterans of the

United States Armed Forces and their families.

Please continue the appropriations process--name conferees,

convene the Conference Committee, and pass the Conference

Report.

Sincerely,

Marty Conatser, National Commander; Thomas L. Burns, Jr.

(DE), National Vice Commander; Randall A. Fisher (KY),

National Vice Commander; David A. Korth (WI), National

Vice Commander; James L. Van Horn (AK), National

Executive Committeeman; Ross Rogers (AK), National

Executive Committeeman; Peggy G. Dettori (AK), National

Vice Commander; Donald Hayden (MN), National Vice

Commander; Floyd W. Turner (AL), National Executive

Committeeman; Julius Maklary (AZ), National Executive

Committeeman; James W. Hackney (CA), National Executive

Committeeman.

Jeff Luginbuel (CO), National Executive Committeeman;

John J. Jackson (DE), National Executive Committeeman;

Robert J. Proctor (FL), National Executive

Committeeman; Ray Hendrix (GA), National Executive

Committeeman; Cleve Rice (ID), National Executive

Committeeman; W. Darrell Hansel

(IN), National Executive Committeeman; David O. Warnken

(KS), National Executive Committeeman; Charles D.

Aucoin (LA), National Executive Committeeman; Dr.

Gordon B. Browning (MD), National Executive

Committeeman; Richard W. Anderson (CT), National

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. Mr. Speaker, this rule is the 39th closed rule the House will be considering this year. The Democrats have not just broken their promise to the American people to cooperate in an open and honest manner, they are actually doing it in a record-setting manner. In fact, this Democrat-controlled Congress has considered more than twice as many closed rules, twice as many, Mr. Speaker, as the previous Republican-controlled Congress did at the same point in the session.

So they didn't just break their promise, Mr. Speaker, they have shattered it. Most troubling of all is that this rule would prevent Representatives from offering amendments to adjust and alter the bill out of concerns directly affecting the districts and people that those Representatives were elected to represent.

The Celebrating America's Heritage Act authorizes $135 billion to be spent over the next 15 years for nine already established National Heritage Areas and six new National Heritage Areas. One of the new National Heritage Areas created in the bill is the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, which includes land in Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia. Mr. Bartlett of Maryland and Mr. Goode of Virginia have expressed concerns that the land in the districts they represent is included in this new National Heritage Area and that this bill does not guarantee local residents will be allowed to participate in decisions affecting the area in their districts. If Congress is going to dictate how land is to be used, we must make sure that those who are directly affected by such designations are, in fact, supportive of the legislation.

I believe that all Members should be afforded an opportunity to have their voices heard on behalf of those they represent when their district is directly impacted. It was remarked yesterday in testimony before the Rules Committee by Mr. Young of Alaska, ``That is just good government.'' What he was referring to obviously was to have a Member talk about issues that affect their district. Unfortunately, if adopted, this 39th closed rule of the year will deny Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Goode and, in fact, all Members of the House, the opportunity to bring forth their concerns to attempt to amend--to perfect this bill. Although National Heritage Areas typically do not create additional Federal lands, the Federal Government can significantly impact the use of the land in and surrounding National Heritage Areas.

Mr. Speaker, coming from an area in my area in central Washington that is 40 percent federally owned, I want to take this opportunity to discuss my concerns with future actions that could lead to additional Federal lands. As I have said many times before on this floor, I believe Federal land management agencies simply have too much land to manage effectively. Federal land agencies continue to struggle to maintain trails and facilities on public lands as well as to manage unnaturally high fuel loads that can lead to catastrophic wildfires. We had that discussion on the previous rule; yet, year after year we are spending precious tax dollars to buy up more private property to take off local tax rolls.

There are far more pressing issues affecting public lands management that

we could be considering today. For example, Mr. Speaker, we should be discussing the extension of payments to forested counties for rural schools and roads or for development of clean energy on public lands. These are far more pressing issues, and they are not going to go away. I believe the House should act quickly in a bipartisan manner to address them.

Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. In closing, I would like to read a quote from the distinguished majority leader (Mr. Hoyer) from Congress Daily PM on December 5, 2006, a little more than 10 months ago. He said, Mr. Speaker, ``We intend to have a Rules Committee that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.''

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader said that a little bit more than 10 months ago. Unfortunately, the Democrat majority is once again not living up to the promises they made to Americans just less than a year ago. We are shutting out the people and the Representatives who are directly impacted by this legislation with this closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote against this, the 39th closed rule of the year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks, my colleagues on the Rules Committee and I have highlighted loopholes in the House rules related to earmark transparency. While this is an important issue that still must be addressed, there is still a more pressing issue that the House must act on immediately.

Mr. Speaker, it has now been 130 days, 130 days, since the veterans funding bill was approved by the House. The Senate passed a similar bill. Mr. Speaker, contrary to what was said in the debate in the last bill, the Senate has appointed their conferees over 6 weeks ago. Sadly, the Democrat leadership in the House has refused to move forward on this bill and name conferees and instead has chosen to put partisanship and politics ahead of ensuring our veterans' needs are met. Every day the Democrats choose not to act to move this bill forward, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million.

Last week, Republican Leader Boehner took a positive step toward naming House Republican conferees. Now, Speaker Pelosi must follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills that enjoys strong bipartisan support. It is troubling to me that Democrat leadership chose to consider a simple resolution today supporting and encouraging greater support for Veterans Day each year, but thus far, has refused to demonstrate meaningful support for our Nation's veterans by working on this final funding bill. Our veterans, and all Americans, want us to put partisanship and politics aside and work together to do what is in the best interests for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I see no better time than right now. Therefore, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill and appoint conferees.

The amendment to the rule I am offering would allow the Speaker to declare a recess for the purpose of consulting with the minority leader prior to the appointment of conferees. Further, it would provide that the motion to instruct conferees otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule within 2 additional legislative days after adoption of this resolution. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we can act on this as quickly as we possibly can.

By defeating the previous question, the House will send a strong message to our veterans that they have our commitment to write a final bill providing them the funding and increase they need, deserve and were promised.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question on the 39th closed rule the House is considering this year, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 523, legislation I introduced to convey certain Bureau of Land Management land to the Douglas County Public Utility District in Washington state. The Douglas County PUD operates the Wells Hydropower Project on the Columbia River, in North Central Washington. The PUD manages the Wells Hydroelectric Dam and the associated reservoir for multiple purposes, including power generation, fish and wildlife protection, and recreation. Almost all of the land encompassing the project area is owned by the PUD, with the exception of several small BLM holdings.

Passing this legislation enables the PUD to manage the project in a far more efficient manner. It also allows the BLM to concentrate its limited resources elsewhere, in areas where there are large contiguous blocks of BLM land. It is clear that we can achieve a better and more efficient management of our resources with this land conveyance.

In addition, since the Douglas PUD is a public agency under Washington state law, this conveyance simply moves land from the control of one public agency to the control of another agency. It is also important to note that the Douglas PUD has a stellar reputation as a steward of the environment. They worked diligently with federal and state agencies, tribal governments, and environmental groups to develop a model Habitat Conservation Plan for salmon and steelhead. The PUD also protects other forms of wildlife and provides public access wherever possible.

As my colleagues may recall, similar legislation passed the House last year under suspension. There is one important addition to the legislation this year. H.R. 523 calls for the proceeds of this land sale to be used to improve public access to existing BLM lands in Washington state. I am pleased that I was able to reach a consensus with members of the Natural Resources Committee to ensure that the proceeds from this sale will stay in the state where the land conveyance occurred--my home state of Washington. I am also pleased to note that these funds will go towards increasing the ability of our constituents to access their public lands.

It is my intention to see that these funds go towards projects like the Juniper Dunes Wilderness Area in Washington state. Due to its close proximity to the Tri-Cities, Juniper Dunes is a highly popular recreation area for serious hikers as well as families who are looking for an interesting place to explore with their children. Despite its popularity, it is extremely difficult for the public to visit Juniper Dunes. The Dunes are currently surrounded by private lands. Therefore, in order to visit the public area, one has to cross private property. H.R. 523 gives the BLM the financial resources and the flexibility they need to improve access to Juniper Dunes.

Finally, I am pleased that I was able to work with the Resources Committee to include language clarifying that the BLM will retain authority under the Federal Power Act for the current FERC relicensing of the Wells project. This authority will remain with the BLM until a new license is in place, which is expected in 2012.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee, specifically Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young and Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva and Subcommittee Ranking Member Bishop and their staffs for all their hard work on this legislation. H.R. 523 will benefit the Douglas County PUD, the BLM as well as improve vitally needed public access throughout Washington state. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and namesake, Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee held a hearing to consider a rule for H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act. At the outset of the hearing, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee did something that Republicans would not have even contemplated when we were in the majority.

Before Members of Congress even had an opportunity to testify before the Rules Committee, the chairwoman announced that the rule would be closed. She further went on to say no notice was sent out seeking amendments from Members, yet at least 27 amendments on a bipartisan basis were submitted to the committee. I guess, Mr. Speaker, we know now that no amendment announcement is code for no opportunity for meaningful, open debate. While surprising, this action is, unfortunately, not unprecedented for this Democrat-controlled Rules Committee.

I would like to thank all Members for submitting their thoughtful amendments on behalf of those they represent. And I especially would like to thank the Members who chose to stay and testify despite learning from the very start that their amendments would not be made in order.

It is sad that yesterday the minds and ears of the Democrat members of the Rules Committee were closed to even allowing for the consideration of amendments and alternatives to legislation, important legislation aimed at closing loopholes and strengthening our national intelligence capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, in 1978 Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to establish a procedure for electronic surveillance of international communications. As enacted into law, FISA had two principle purposes: First, to protect the civil liberties of Americans by requiring the government to first obtain a court order before collecting electronic intelligence on U.S. citizens in our country. Second, the law specified how intelligence officials, working to protect our national security, could collect information on foreign persons in foreign places without having to get a warrant.

The intent of the original FISA law was to enhance American security while at the same time protecting American privacy. Recognizing that no

responsibility of the Federal Government is more important than providing for the defense and security of the American people, Congress should be doing all it can to ensure that FISA continues to reflect the intent of the original law.

In the nearly 30 years since FISA became law, we have seen tremendous advances in communication technology such as the Internet, cell phones and e-mail. However, under the original FISA law, our intelligence officials are not free to monitor foreign terrorists in foreign countries without a court order because of advances in communication technology. It is clear that our FISA laws are outdated and must be modernized to reflect changes in communication technology over the past three decades.

In August, Congress in a bipartisan manner took an important first step forward to close our Nation's intelligence gap; but, unfortunately, only for a 6-month period. The Protect America Act passed only after repeated attempts by Republicans to give our Nation's intelligence professionals the tools and the authority they need to protect our homeland. This action was long overdue and this law marked a significant step towards improving our security.

Now Congress must act again to renew this law by early next year before it expires or our national security will once again be at risk. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today, the RESTORE Act, does not provide the security we need to protect our troops and our Nation from a potential future terrorist attack. The bill also weakens Americans' privacy protections and fails to permanently close our Nation's intelligence gap.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, the RESTORE Act does not go far enough to reform outdated FISA regulations that burden our troops in the battlefield. It contains no provision for third parties to challenge FISA court orders. The bill also creates a centralized database that could actually increase the risk of privacy violations. Another major concern is that the RESTORE Act contains yet another sunset provision that forces the bill to expire on December 31, 2009, unnecessarily leaving our intelligence officials without the tools they need to protect Americans.

It is alarming to me that this rule brings a bill to the House floor that goes so far as to weaken American privacy provisions while at the same time strengthening protections of our enemies in times of war.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, nearly 30 amendments were submitted by Members on both sides of the aisle to address these and other concerns with the Democrat majority's failed attempt to update our current FISA laws. However, none of these amendments, which ranged from permanently strengthening our FISA laws to acquiring communications of foreign terrorists in foreign countries without a FISA court order, were allowed to be considered on the House floor today under this rule.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly disappointing to me that every Member of this House is prohibited from offering changes to this bill that could make it more effective in our constant battle to prevent a future terrorist attack against our Nation. After all, if we cannot come together and work in a bipartisan manner on issues as important as improving our national security, then what can we work together on.

Sadly, because the Democrat majority has chosen to consider the RESTORE Act under this closed process, working together in a bipartisan manner will not be possible. Instead, if this rule is adopted, Members will only have a choice to vote for or against a seriously flawed bill that threatens, not improves, our national security. Sadly, this closed process shuts out all American voices from being heard and, ultimately, every American could suffer consequences if this rule and bill are adopted. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rogers of Michigan.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Gohmert of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield at this time 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Franks of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend has more time than I have, and I have more requests for time than I have time for. And so, Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that each side get an additional 5 minutes so I can accommodate the requests on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder then if I could inquire of my friend, since he has more time, if maybe he would yield me at least enough time so I can close on my

side, and I'd ask my friend from New York if he would do that for me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left, and how much time does the other side have?

Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from New York if he has any more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I'll reserve my time.

I would inquire of my friend from New York if they have any additional speakers.

How much time do I have on my side?

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

Today, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow for a substitute amendment to be offered by Mr. Hoekstra of Michigan or Mr. Smith of Texas. This will give the House an opportunity to consider additional views that were denied with this closed rule in the Rules Committee last night.

And, Mr. Speaker, September 28, 2006, we had a debate on this issue last year, and I'd like to quote a Member and what he said on the House floor. And I quote: ``You beat with rulemaking that which you know you cannot beat with reason.''

And he goes on to say, ``I know what you say: Do as you say, not as we do. For today, in the people's House democracy has been eviscerated by those who recommend it to others. I have said it before. The way the majority runs the House is shameful. It is undemocratic. It happens every single day that we have a closed rule.''

The speaker was my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the closed rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I thank the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

This rule provides for the consideration of a bill to establish a national affordable housing trust fund. Members of this House share in the commitment to meet the housing needs of lower-income Americans. However, we differ on how to best achieve this goal.

The bill that will be before us today creates a new, a new national housing trust fund, and, with it, a whole new level of Federal bureaucracy. There are already over 30 separate Federal programs designed to promote affordable housing. The new trust fund, created by the underlying bill, is modeled in large part on one of those existing programs, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.

Why create a new level of Federal bureaucracy to administer essentially the same program that is already being successfully administered by State and local governments closest to the problem? It seems to me that ought to be a big subject of the debate that we have today.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this rule makes in order a substitute amendment offered by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas that would establish a national affordable housing grant fund program within the current HOME program. This proposal would meet the need and meet the goal of expanding rental and home ownership opportunities for low-income families without adding new layers of red tape. While I support the Neugebauer amendment being made in order, I am troubled that this is the only Republican amendment allowed to be considered under this restrictive rule.

A total of 15 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee by the 10 a.m. deadline yesterday. One amendment offered by Representative Capuano of Massachusetts to change the short title of the bill to the ``Barney Frank National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007'' was withdrawn. Out of the remaining 14 amendments, seven were submitted by Democrats and seven were submitted by Republicans. This rule makes all seven amendments offered by Democrats made in order, but just one Republican amendment. If this rule is adopted, many thoughtful ideas will be denied the opportunity to be considered on the House floor today.

Unfortunately, shutting out amendments offered by Republicans has become the norm for the Democrat Rules Committee.

Americans want to see Members on both sides of the aisle work together to address the problems our Nation faces. Unfortunately, with this restrictive rule, the Democrat majority has chosen to deny millions of Americans a voice on several significant issues related to meeting the affordable housing challenges that lower-income Americans face. Therefore, I must urge my colleagues to vote against House Resolution 720.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had requests from two Members, but I see they are not here. If the gentlelady has no more speakers, I will be prepared to close on my side.

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

House Republicans believe that every earmark should be debatable on the House floor and that the House earmark rules are flawed when it comes to the enforceability of earmarks.

Earlier this year, Republican Leader Boehner introduced a measure to close loopholes in the rules and allow the House to debate openly and honestly earmarks contained in all bills. Currently, 196 Republicans have signed a petition to bring this proposal to the floor for immediate consideration.

Unfortunately, we need 22 more Members in order to get real earmark reform before this can be considered by the House. The House cannot delay action on this any longer. Each day we put off closing loopholes in the House earmark rules, American taxpayers are left to wonder what hidden earmarks are contained in bills before the House. It is time we act to prove to American taxpayers this House is serious about earmark transparency and enforceability.

I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately consider House Resolution 479 introduced by Republican Leader Boehner. By defeating the previous question, the House will still be able to consider the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act today, but we will also be able to address the earmark enforceability in order to restore the credibility of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the restrictive rule which denies debate on several significant issues related to increasing the availability of affordable housing with the most efficient and effective use of government resources.

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

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