Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) 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, this rule provides for consideration of the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act, which would authorize $1.25 billion to create three new regional commissions and replace two other regional commissions. These five regional commissions would be Federal-State partnerships that would provide grants to State and local governments to promote infrastructure and economic development.

While I believe that comprehensive, regional approaches to addressing infrastructure and economic development needs often can be beneficial, I am not convinced that creating five commissions and the layers of bureaucracy associated with them is necessary to provide grants to communities most in need.

The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act was originally considered by the House on September 17 under suspension of the rules, which limits debate, bars amendments and requires a two- thirds vote for passage. Bills typically considered under suspension of the rules are bills and resolutions to name post offices and Federal buildings, congratulate sports teams and to raise general awareness of other issues.

Generally, bills authorizing $1 billion in government expansion are not considered under a process with limited time for debate and no opportunity for amendment, but that is what the Democrat majority chose to do with the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act last month.

Because of concerns either with the underlying bill or with the way in which this bill was originally considered, it failed to garner a two-thirds vote and did not pass under suspension of the rules. This closed rule does provide for more time to debate the merits of the underlying bill, but, unfortunately, it also shuts Members out from offering amendments to make this perhaps a better bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from New York if he has any other speakers, and if not, I am prepared to yield back if he is.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans believe that every earmark should be debatable on the House floor. Republican Leader Boehner has introduced a proposal to improve the House rules and allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills.

To date, 196 Republicans have signed a discharge position to bring this measure to the House floor for a vote. Unfortunately, we are still 22 Members shy of what is needed. Therefore, I not only would encourage all Members of the House to sign the discharge position, but I will also be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to the House to allow the House to immediately consider House Resolution 479 introduced by Republican Leader Boehner.

It is vital that the House of Representatives act today and pass House Resolution 479 so that we can show American taxpayers we are serious when it comes to earmark transparency.

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

I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I will be more than happy to tell you. We

think that the intent on both sides of the aisle was to have all earmarks have a transparency to them so we know where those earmarks come from. Under this rule, we are self-executing an amendment, and that amendment is not covered, is not covered under the transparency. Now, I don't know if there is something within that bill that has earmarks that aren't being reported, but Leader Boehner's resolution simply would make this subject to transparency. That is all we are saying. That is all that we are saying.

I thank the gentleman for yielding on this point.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I appreciate that he has a little bit different view than I have. I would ask the gentleman, what bills are covered by the earmark rule, transparency rule, that you are talking about today? What bills?

The rules only cover appropriation bills.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2740, the MEJA Expansion and

Enforcement Act. This bill is an attempt to ensure that all Federal civilian contractors can be prosecuted for crimes they commit abroad. The issue before us today is not, Mr. Speaker, a policy decision to determine whether or not contractors should be in Iraq, but, rather, the issue is whether the principle of current law should be applied to civilian contractors.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Forbes, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security in the Judiciary Committee testified before the Rules Committee that while the intent of this legislation is right, this bill is very, very poorly drafted. During markup of the bill by the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Forbes and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee raised concerns with Members on the other side of the aisle. Republicans agreed that they would work to move this legislation forward because of assurances made by the majority members of the committee that their concerns would be worked out. Mr. Forbes testified before the Rules Committee that his main concerns with the bill were a lack of clear definitions, vague language and Federal mandates on the FBI without additional resources.

Mr. Speaker, a manager's amendment was submitted to the Rules Committee and it wasn't until after the Rules Committee amendment deadline had passed Monday evening that Mr. Forbes found that none of the concerns raised by Republicans were addressed in the manager's amendment. At this point, of course, it was too late for Mr. Forbes and other Members to submit amendments. Had they tried to submit amendments to the Rules Committee past the deadline, they likely would have been turned away at the Rules Committee door, just as many Members, including myself, have been this Congress.

Yesterday, the ranking member, Mr. Dreier, attempted to provide an open rule for consideration of this bill. An open rule would have allowed any Member of the House of Representatives an opportunity to come forward and amend the bill, and especially those members of the Judiciary Committee that felt that they were left out of this process. However, the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee rejected this idea on a party line vote of 8-4.

Mr. Dreier then attempted to allow Mr. Forbes to offer an amendment on the floor today to make changes to the bill in order to restore the commitment that was once made by the Democrat majority. But I am disappointed that this attempt was also rejected on a party line vote of 8-4.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee over 2 months ago and yet the Democrat majority failed to make good on their commitment to address the reasonable and entirely justifiable concerns raised by Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, contractor accountability is an issue that should be discussed and addressed in a bipartisan manner. But there are legitimate concerns with the way this bill was drafted. Unfortunately, this rule denies Members, including all Republicans, an opportunity to improve the underlying bill. Because the Rules Committee has once again chosen to stifle bipartisanship and deliberation by bringing forth this restrictive rule, I must urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, House Resolution 702.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding. She was in the committee yesterday when Mr. Forbes testified. I would hope that the gentlewoman would agree with me that when Mr. Forbes testified under questioning from me asking if he felt that he had assurances that these issues would be worked out from the time that the committee passed the bill out of committee in August until now, and he said that he felt that that commitment was a strong commitment, and therefore, he didn't offer any amendments.

Now, would the gentlewoman agree with me that that was what Mr. Forbes said?

Will the gentlewoman further yield on that point?

I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say under questioning when I asked Mr. Forbes, because he stated that the deadline had passed when the manager's amendment which did not address their concerns was introduced, he then, of course, would be prohibited from offering amendments. I asked him if there were an opportunity in the next 24 hours, i.e., from yesterday until today, could they prepare amendments to address these concerns, he said, ``Yes.''

I hope that the gentlewoman will agree with me that that is what he said yesterday in front of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point once again, the reason that there were no Republican amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee is because there was a clear, clear understanding when the bill was passed out of the Judiciary Committee that the issues and concerns that were raised by the Republicans would be addressed in a bipartisan way, and the vehicle by which they would be addressed was a manager's amendment, which is a normal process when you bring bills to the floor. That commitment was apparently not fulfilled.

By the time that the manager's amendment was drafted, with the idea that supposedly in a bipartisan way these issues would be addressed, it was too late for any Republican to offer an amendment because it was past the deadline that was put in place by this new majority on the Rules Committee. Therefore, there was no chance for Republicans to submit any amendments. Therefore, there were no amendments that were submitted.

So I just wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, that the reason that there were no Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee is because a promise and a commitment was broken between August 2 and October 2, yesterday, when we met on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding for this exchange, because I think it is important. This issue is very, very important because we are talking about ultimately a portion of the security of our country, and I think we need to address that in a bipartisan way.

I am simply pointing out, in testimony yesterday in front of the Rules Committee, Mr. Forbes was given the assurance when the bill left the Judiciary Committee, and I don't think that the gentleman is on the Judiciary Committee, but he felt that he had a commitment that those concerns be addressed.

Now, having concerns addressed and being totally satisfied are two different things. If they weren't satisfied, then you could offer an amendment to make the adjustments and you could debate those issues. The point I am making is that Mr. Forbes felt that the commitment that was given to him to make those adjustments and those concerns were not fully addressed; therefore, he didn't submit any amendments to the bill. I am not suggesting that all of his concerns should be in the manager's amendment; I am simply suggesting that he was denied the opportunity, in his mind, to have these concerns addressed.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I just want to, Mr. Speaker, tell my colleagues that there was no Forbes amendment in front of the Rules Committee, so I can't even pass judgment whether it addressed the concerns that he had. He did not submit an amendment to the Rules Committee. He did not submit an amendment to the Rules Committee because he was given the assurances that the concerns that were raised when the bill came out of committee would be addressed.

While the gentleman is probably talking about a potential amendment, nobody on the Rules Committee saw the amendment, because the amendment was not submitted to the Rules Committee because he felt his concerns were not addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to clarify that. When he talks about the Forbes amendment, there is, or was no Forbes amendment in front of the Rules Committee yesterday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the previous speaker, my friend from Oregon, that the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), is a very, very thoughtful individual. I have worked with him on some issues, and I would agree with that. I think Members would also agree with me when I say that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) is also a very thoughtful individual and somebody that you can work with on a bipartisan basis.

When somebody like Mr. Forbes comes to the Rules Committee and tells us that he was given a commitment about concerns that he felt needed to be addressed in this legislation and was given the assurances that they would be addressed, not necessarily solved but at least be addressed, I think you would have to say that he was acting in very good faith. I think this sends a very, very strong message for Members that want to work in a bipartisan way and then get treated as Mr. Forbes said he was treated. I think that is not good for the institution.

So I just want to, Mr. Speaker, reiterate once again what happened. The reason that there were no amendments substantive to the issue of the concerns that were submitted by Republicans to the Rules Committee is because the ranking member on the subcommittee dealing with this issue felt that the commitments that were given to him were not carried out. There were no, apparently, discussions of what was going into the manager's amendment.

Again, I am not suggesting Mr. Forbes would have been totally happy, but he could have offered an amendment to address those concerns. He was denied that opportunity simply, simply because he felt the commitment that was given to him when the bill came out of the Judiciary Committee was not carried through.

So it is for that reason, that reason that we probably won't have as robust a debate on this issue, and in all likelihood we won't have the kind of legislation that needs to go forward in a bipartisan manner on something where everybody agrees that the intent of this legislation is what everybody agrees on a bipartisan basis needs to happen. I regret that. It is for that reason that I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 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 called for a vote on the previous question and will be doing so again today. Why? Because we are concerned that the House rules are flawed when it comes to the enforceability of earmarks.

Republican Leader Boehner has a proposal that will improve the House rules and allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills. I am asking that my colleagues 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 MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act today, but will also be able to address earmark enforceability in order to restore the credibility of the House. I am hopeful today will be the day my colleagues will defeat the previous question and, in doing so, will send a strong message to American taxpayers that this House is serious when it comes to earmark transparency.

Mr. 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.

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate your getting this time. I appreciate my colleagues that are going to speak later.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is about promises, because we live in the greatest country in the world where people make their decisions on who will govern them by the promises that they made. I would really like to emphasize the point that has been made several times by the distinguished ranking member and the gentleman from Florida, that process has consequences, because ultimately process turns into substance, it turns into laws, and, of course, that is what governs us.

I appreciate the gentleman saying that. I note that that statement was made after the election. Presumably, there was a decision made that the campaign was about change, and so this statement was made after the election.

The statement that I have up here by the distinguished chairman now of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter, was also made after the election. It says: ``It is our goal to use rules responsibly, opening up the workings of the House and using it to usher in the most honest and ethical Congress in history. An open process will mean that more commonsense legislation written in the national interest will get to the House floor and be voted on.''

We were promised this after the election, I remind my friend from California, this was after the election.

The reason for this is very obvious. The role of the Rules Committee is to funnel legislation so that every Member could have a possibility to be heard. We have 19 standing committees. Because we have two vacancies, there are 433 Members of the House today. We simply couldn't control this unless we had the standing committees doing their work.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee this year is on track to rewrite more bills in the Rules Committee than we ever did during the 12 years that we were in control of Congress. They have done it with troops in Iraq. They did it with lobby reform. They did it with the farm bill legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about the farm bill. I come from rural America. I was very much involved in that process as we are going forward. I recall very, very specifically that when the farm bill came out of committee, it came out of committee with strong bipartisan support. Yet, when we went to the Rules Committee the next day to report out a rule, there was a massive tax increase that was put on that farm bill.

I remember the distinguished ranking member, last year's chairman, of the Agriculture Committee, Bob Goodlatte from Virginia, came to the Rules Committee and testified. He said, I felt betrayed by what went on, because he was not a part of that process. I know, I can speak to the bipartisan nature of how this farm bill was put together as it relates to the farm because there was a hearing in my district. There were four Republicans and four Democrats that showed up to this hearing last June, so this was a process in the making. Yet, at the last minute, all that process was thrown aside, and it was a broken deal.

It is bad because of what is happening. The policies that we have in place have potential detrimental effects to the farmers. The farm bill, I might add, expired at the end of September.

We put a 2-week extension on that. I suspect we will probably have to have another 2-week extension on that. It is not right, in a body of this size, to rewrite bills in the Rules Committee.

I want to follow up on my friend from Florida who talked about the SCHIP bill. That bill was enacted on a bipartisan basis in 1997. I supported that. It was part of a larger bill. That was probably the most egregious rewrite. We met at 1:00 in the morning, only had about an hour to look at what was in the bill, and there was a lot of rumors going around, but we met at 1:00 in the morning, a 500-page bill.

I got a heads-up from a clinic in my district that is physician owned that they would be out of business if this bill were signed into law.

They said they would be out of a business because of a provision that related to the Medicare part that they added to the SCHIP bill as related to physician-owned facilities. This facility was put in place in 1940, 67 years ago, and yet the provision within this bill said that you could not have physician-owned hospitals.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this clinic in Wenatchee, Washington, covers an area the size of the State of Maryland. Now, if the idea is to expand health care, why would you potentially shut down a facility that covers the geographic size of the State of Maryland?

We went around and around with those that were testifying in favor of

this particular bill, and they first started out and said no, you're mistaken, that is not in the bill. But after discussions going on with my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and me going back and forth, they admitted at nearly 3:00 in the morning that yes, that provision was in there, and it was intended to be in there.

That is exactly right. It was done purposely. They first said we must be mistaken. But after probing and asking questions, they were essentially saying that you could not get any Medicare reimbursement if you were a physician-owned facility.

Now, I just don't understand what the motivation is behind that. But the point is, and we are obviously working on this because we don't want this to happen, but this is what happens when the process gets all messed up and you start rewriting bills in the middle of the night.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out those two examples. I think it's contrary to the promises that were made by the new majority and what they have carried out. I think that is something that needs to be talked about.

I want to thank the ranking member for putting this Special Order together so we can discuss these issues in an open manner.

They said they intended to. And let's look at this from a little different perspective. This facility has been in business for 67 years. Clearly, clearly they have a following in that community, or they wouldn't have survived in that competitive atmosphere unless there were people that wanted to go to that facility.

It's in Wenatchee, Washington, the Wenatchee Valley Health Clinic. So it's an egregious abuse of the rules, in my view. I don't want to take all the time. I yield back to my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a former small business owner, I recognize the need for legislation to help update and streamline Small Business Administration programs and leverage new investment strategies in order to expand small business investment.

However, we must also make a commitment to small business that tax relief measures that passed the House the last several years should not be allowed to expire at the end of this year. With a month left before Congress's target adjournment date and just 3 months left of 2007, small businesses are depending on Congress to act quickly to renew tax relief which has allowed them to create more jobs and grow, helping America's economy grow at the same time. Tax relief and reduced regulatory burdens can make all the difference whether a small business is profitable at the end of the year or is forced to close its doors.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee adopted a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3567, the Small Business Investment Expansion Act of 2007. While this rule makes all submitted amendments in order, I believe the underlying bipartisan bill that is supported both by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Small Business should have been considered under an open rule on the House floor today.

Yesterday the ranking member, Mr. Dreier, on Rules gave the Democrat majority on Rules the opportunity to double the number of open rules that this body has heard other than appropriation bills reported from the committee this Congress. Unfortunately, Democrat members of the Rules Committee denied bringing the underlying bipartisan bill to the floor under an open rule process. Thus only two, Mr. Speaker, only two of 433 Members of the House will be able to offer amendments on this bill today. While this is disappointing, this, unfortunately, is not an unusual practice of this Rules Committee, despite promises of openness made to the American people just last year.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, House rules were adopted that require the disclosure and allow Members to challenge earmarks in appropriation bills;

however, under current House rules, earmarks and authorization bills and tax bills do not have to be disclosed and are not allowed to be challenged. This loophole needs to be closed, and I am going to give my colleagues in this House another opportunity to send a strong message to the American taxpayers that we are serious about earmark transparency. Therefore, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow for immediate consideration of House Resolution 479, the earmark accountability rule. By defeating the previous question, we will be able to address earmark enforceability in order to restore credibility to this House. By considering and approving House Resolution 479, we will send a strong message to American taxpayers that the House will no longer turn its head the other way when it comes to transparency of earmarks.

As my colleague Lincoln Diaz-Balart observed yesterday, it has been a good week for earmarks and a bad week for transparency. We have an opportunity to change that, and I hope the Democrat majority will not make this another missed opportunity to make good on their promises to seek earmark transparency to American taxpayers.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady and chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in just 5 days, fiscal year 2007 will come to an end and a new fiscal year will begin. I am disappointed that this rule and the underlying continuing resolution are on the floor today. Not one, let me repeat that, not one spending bill has been sent to the President for his signature this year.

Congress has a responsibility to fund the priorities of the government, and here we are, just days before the start of a new fiscal year, and not one of the 12 spending bills that must be signed into law have been signed.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will support the underlying continuing resolution because I recognize the government must continue to be funded. It is my strong hope, however, that within the next 6 weeks, 12 separate conference reports will come before the House of Representatives.

I do not believe that omnibus bills are the best vehicles for spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, and I truly hope that that will not be what we end with on November 16.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a disappointing day for the American people. Here we are, nearly 9 months into this Congress controlled by the Democrat majority, and still the majority has failed to live up to their promises by denying every American taxpayer accountability when it comes to transparency of earmarks.

Just yesterday, a challenge was made to an earmark slipped into a bill 299 pages long that had not been disclosed. The Democrat majority certified the bill was ``earmark free,'' but then denied all accountability and scrutiny of this earmark.

It is vital that the House act today to allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, such as the SCHIP bill yesterday, and not just on appropriation bills. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that they may amend the rule to allow for immediate consideration of House Resolution 479, the Earmark Accountability bill.

By defeating the previous question, the House will be able to consider the continuing resolution today, but will also be able to address earmark enforceability in order to restore the credibility of this House.

By considering and approving House Resolution 479, we will send a strong message to the American taxpayers that this House will no longer turn its head the other way when it comes to transparency of earmarks.

So, 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.

With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I inform the House of Representatives of the untimely death of our dear friend and former colleague, Jennifer Dunn, this morning.

Words cannot express the shock and sorrow that I feel today.

I know that all of you join me in keeping her family, sons Reagan, Bryant and stepson Angus Thomson, and her loving husband, Keith Thomson, in our thoughts and prayers.

All of us who have served with Jennifer Dunn in the House have known the kindness, the wit and political savvy that she embodied. She was vibrant, enjoyed life, and she always had a kind word for everyone.

She was known, Madam Speaker, as a fierce advocate when it came to supporting Republican women for election, both locally in our State of Washington and nationally.

On a personal note, for 32 years she was my friend, fellow Ronald Reagan activist, my State party chairman and colleague in the House where she served the Eighth District of Washington from 1993 to 2005.

Always positive, dignified and poised in everything that she did. A loving wife and mother, as well as a political leader with great skill.

Today, Washington State and our Nation has lost a giant, a true leader and a stateswoman in every sense of the word. Madam Speaker, she will be dearly missed.

I yield to my friend, the senior Democrat from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Madam Speaker, I know a number of Members want to express their views, and we will afford them that opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I ask the House to join the delegation from Washington State in observing a moment of silence in honor of our former colleague.

Madam Speaker, I wish to recognize Amy Mumma of Ellensburg, Washington for her contributions to the wine industry in Washington state and around the world.

Ms. Mumma is the Founder and Director of Central Washington University's World Wine Program. She was recently selected to serve as President of the professional jury for the second International Wine Women Awards, held in Paris, France. The Wine Women Awards is an international competition honoring female leaders in the wine industry. Ms. Mumma was the only American selected to be on the prestigious jury, comprised of well-known wine experts from around the world.

In 2005, she was herself honored as the International Wine Woman of 2005-2006. Ms. Mumma was selected from over 160 candidates from 20 countries for her extensive technical knowledge and unique personal vision of wine, and her understanding of the global wine industry.

Ms. Mumma has presented both nationally and internationally on the topics of wine faults, marketing, and professional wine analysis. Her extensive wine education includes an Advanced Diploma in Wine and Spirits from the Wine and Spirit Education Trust in London and a Diploma of Wine Studies and Tasting from France's University of Burgundy. She is currently a Master of Wine candidate at the prestigious Institute of Masters of Wine in London, England.

In 2003, Ms. Mumma founded the World Wine Program at Central Washington University and has worked hard to enhance the knowledge of students, professionals, and consumers of wine and the wine industry. The program currently includes a Wine Trade Professional Certificate program, a Wine Trade Tourism minor, consumer courses, and Wine Trade Training Courses for wine industry employees.

Ms. Mumma is dedicated to expanding the World Wine Program by establishing a comprehensive program examining wine faults and methods for wine professionals to identify and reduce the number of faults in wine. The program promises to improve wine quality and ensure the continued vitality of the wine industry in Washington state and the Nation.

I commend Ms. Mumma for her achievements in the global wine industry and her commitment to providing world-renowned wine education opportunities to wine professionals, students, and consumers in Washington state.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider a conference report that incorporates several similar measures that have passed the House and Senate authorizing funding for scientific research and increasing the number of students majoring in math, science, engineering and foreign languages.

The several bills that passed both Houses were approved by overwhelming bipartisan votes. The authorization level for all of these bipartisan bills combined a total $24 billion in the House. I am concerned, however, that the conference report today contains over $43 billion in overall authorizations, nearly double.

It is vital that the United States continue to grow more globally competitive in the areas of scientific research and technology. Federal and private investment in supporting research and development is essential to the health of our economy and our competitiveness as a Nation.

We must plan for the future by areas of basic research and science today.

However, there is also something we must do today, and that is update our Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act laws. This body has missed several important opportunities to consider changing our laws to account for technological advances, and now we are faced with a limited time remaining before Congress recesses for the August district work period.

You can all agree or disagree that our FISA laws need to be updated. All I will be asking my colleagues to do is to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Members will have the opportunity to debate and consider fixing our outdated FISA law that currently requires our intelligence community to ask a judge permission before listening to telephone conversations of foreign terrorists in foreign countries who threaten our Nation's security.

Let me be clear also. If the previous question is defeated, the America COMPETES conference report will still be on the floor today. This is not an attempt whatsoever to delay this conference report. It is only an attempt to bring this issue to the floor as soon as possible, but, more importantly, before the Congress recesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a real doctor from Georgia, a member of the Science and Technology Committee, and a former member of the Rules Committee, Dr. Gingrey, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Dr. Ehlers).

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my opening remarks that I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can address the very, very important issue of reform of

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

If the gentlelady is prepared to close, I am prepared to close on my side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous question we will give Members the ability to vote today on the merits of changing current law to ensure our intelligence community has the tools they need to protect our Nation from potentially imminent terrorist attack.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, 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 thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time to speak against this closed rule that bars every single Member of this House from offering an amendment to change this Democrat bill, a bill, Madam Speaker, which I am compelled to oppose.

This nearly 500-page bill is being rammed through the House with the Rules Committee meeting on this bill at 1 a.m. this morning and with no Members even being allowed to propose fixes or alternatives because we are told it is absolutely imperative that Congress act to provide government-run health care coverage to more Americans.

So I am compelled to ask: If the purpose of this bill is to provide more health care coverage for Americans, then why are the Medicare plans of over 8 million seniors in our country being put at risk by this legislation?

Why are over 150,000 Washingtonian State seniors going to have their Medicare Advantage health coverage put at risk by cuts in this bill?

Why are one in 12 seniors on Medicare in my congressional district facing a potential loss of their current coverage? How do you expand health care to more Americans if you are forcing the elimination of Medicare plans that seniors have chosen?

Madam Speaker, even more troubling to me is a provision in this bill that would force the closure of the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center in my district in Wenatchee, Washington. After reading the bill, this health center wrote a letter to me that states: ``Should section 651,'' of this bill, ``be enacted into law as written, we foresee the likely closure of the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center and our outlying facilities in the next few years.''

July 26, 2007.

Hon. Maria Cantwell,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Doc Hastings,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Cantwell and Representative Hastings: Late

yesterday, Representatives Dingell, Rangel, Stark and Pallone

released legislation entitled the Children's Health and

Medicare Protection Act of 2007 (CHAMP). Upon review of this

bill, we discovered a provision, Section 651 that would be

devastating to Wenatchee Valley Medical Center. It appears

that this legislation is on a fast-track towards enactment by

the House and possibly by the entire Congress.

We seek your immediate assistance in attempting: to either

modify this provision or have it removed from the bill

entirely.

Should Section 651 be enacted into law as written, we

foresee the likely closure of WVMC and our outlying

facilities in the next few years.

The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center was founded in 1940 in

a rural and remote area of Washington State. The three

founding physicians desired to establish something akin to

the Mayo Clinic model in a medically underserved area.

Through committed work, personal investment, risk taking, and

collaboration over a geographic region that spans more than

12,000 square miles, the Medical Center has adhered to and

largely achieved that model and vision.

The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is organized as a

hospital system. The system is located in eight different

communities in the north-central area of Washington State.

Those communities are Wenatchee, East Wenatchee, Moses Lake,

Cashmere, Royal City, Omak, Tonasket, and Oroville. The

Medical Center is one of the largest employers in its region

with 1500 employees. Its physicians provide the majority of

the admissions, medical support, and physician staffing for

these community hospitals: Central Washington Hospital

(Wenatchee); Wenatchee Valley Hospital (Wenatchee); Samaritan

Hospital (Moses Lake); Mid-Valley Hospital (Omak); and North

Valley Hospital (Tonasket).

The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a 100% physician-

owned and directed hospital system. Each of the 150+

physicians who are ``owners'' of the WVMC own less than 1% of

the Center. The proposed legislation would require us to stop

being what we are and attempt to morph into something

different. We have concluded that selling 60% of our hospital

(to whom?) as required by Section 651, and preventing WVMC

from growing beyond it's current bed size, as also required

by Section 651 is non-sustainable, a death-knell.

We could attempt to cope initially by closing money-losing

sites like Royal City, Tonasket, and Oroville. The closure of

the latter two sites will have the corollary impact of

depriving North Valley Hospital of seventy five percent of

its medical staff, and

would likely result in its closure. We would have to drop

money-losing services like the Medical Hospitalist program

($550,000 loss per year) and Trauma Surgeon on-call program

($850,000 loss per year) at Central Washington Hospital. We

have supported those programs because they save lives, are

cost-effective (for society at large), and are likely a pre-

requisite to induce many physicians in the physician

recruiting climate to any practice setting.

A broad and comprehensive delivery system in a rural region

is an inter-connected and fragile organism. The proposed

legislation fixes a problem that doesn't exist in either

North Central Washington or the Wenatchee Valley Medical

Center, and will unleash a series of decisions that will be

deleterious in the short-run, and likely calamitous over the

next five years. The proposal needs modification, and a

significant increase in flexibility to reflect actual on the

ground actualities in rural delivery systems.

The multi-specialty physician practice that is part of the

Wenatchee Valley Medical Center includes more than 30 medical

and surgical specialties in addition to a large number of

primary care providers. The Medical Center provides the only

services available in the region in the following

specialties:

1. Medical Oncology

2. Radiation Oncology

3. Pulmonary Medicine

4. Medical Hospitalist

5. Surgical Hospitalist

6. Vascular Surgery

7. Neuro-Surgery

8. Cardiology

9. Rheumatology

10. Endocrinology

11. Nephrology

12. Gastroenterology

13. Neurology

14. Urology

15. Dermatology

16. Physiatry

This year, the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center will serve

more than 150,000 unique patients. Ninety four percent of

those people reside in the four rural counties (Chelan,

Douglas, Grant, Okanogan) where the Medical Center is

located. The majority of these patients have long-standing

relationships with the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, some

of those continuous relationships reach all the way back to

the organization's founding. The four counties in North

Central Washington have a combined population of 240,000. A

comparison of the patients served by the Medical Center to

the region's population indicates that the Medical Center is

a key, and likely indispensable, component of the region's

healthcare infrastructure.

The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a collaborator. It

offers training opportunities to medical students and

residents of the University of Washington and other medical

schools; and has many training affiliations with area

community colleges in the allied health professions.

Wenatchee Valley Medical Center specialists outreach more

than 1200 times annually to hospitals and clinics in outlying

communities. Medical Center staff provides 24/7 coverage for

the Emergency Room at North Valley Hospital in Tonasket.

Medical Center staff provide 24/7 medical and surgical

hospitalist coverage for the Trauma Center at Central

Washington Hospital. The Medical Center is making its

Computerized Medical Record available to all practitioners in

the region, and its Patient Profile is being advanced by the

Community Choice PHCO as a potential continuity of care

record for the region.

The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center has a long-standing

tradition of serving all comers, regardless of their ability

to pay. The Medical Center has a needs based Compassionate

Care program that is well publicized and which will provide

more than $3 million in charitable care this year.

The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a cost-effective

health care delivery system and is conservative in its

ordering and treatment patterns. The Medical Center has

ongoing focus and initiatives in areas like prescriptions,

medical imaging, hospital and nursing home lengths of stay,

and cardiovascular interventions.

The Medical Center is a Medicaid safety net provider, and

accepts referrals from throughout the state. The Medical

Center ranks among the top 5 Medicaid providers in Washington

State. The region has a high and growing Medicare aged

demographic. The Medical Center provides a variety of

services needed by Medicare patients. The combination of

Medicaid and Medicare represents sixty percent of the

Wenatchee Valley Medical Center's volumes. Most healthcare

financial analysts would maintain that those percentages are

uneconomic and non-sustainable; that the cost-shift is too

great.

As stated earlier, the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a

hospital system. It was organized in that fashion in order to

survive as a vital, dynamic contributor to healthcare and its

delivery in North Central Washington. Having the opportunity

to bill as a hospital provides the economic life ring that

enables the Medical Center to compete in national markets for

the physician recruits that our undermanned and health

shortage regional delivery system is desperate for. Any

``profits'' earned by the Medical Center are plowed back into

the delivery system; either to subsidize new services (like

the recent opening of the Royal City Clinic in a community

that was without healthcare for the last 2 years) or to

invest in new services such as Image Guided Radiation Therapy

and a Chemo-therapy Infusion Center in Moses Lake. The

Medical Center is currently in the process of recruiting 29

new and replacement physicians to place throughout our

region. A number of these recruits have been requested by the

hospitals we co-labor with. There is significant working

capital investment required to establish these practices, and

frequently a tremendous facility investment needed to house

these practices. Both of these investments are currently

ongoing; and will be a death-trap if the proposed hospital

self-referral legislation is enacted as currently drafted.

If you or your staff have questions or need additional

information, please do not hesitate to contact our

Administrator, Shaun Koos, Jay Johnson, our Associate

Administrator or Bill Finerfrock our Washington DC

Representative.

Your immediate consideration of this matter is critical to

the continued availability of healthcare in North-Central

Washington State. We look forward to working with you.

Sincerely,

David Weber,

CEO/Chairman, Board of Directors,

Wenatchee Valley Medical Center.

Madam Speaker, the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center was founded in 1940 by three physicians. In the last 67 years, it has grown and now employs 1,500, serves a population of a quarter of a million people in an area the size of Maryland, and treats 150,000 patients a year.

This bill would force its closure because it prohibits any hospital from being more than 40 percent owned by doctors if they are to continue to receive Medicare payments for providing care for seniors. The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is 100 percent opened by 150 doctors, and I fail to see why this should be made illegal in the United States of America.

At just after 2 a.m. this morning in the Rules Committee, I raised this concern with the two gentlemen representing the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

When I first asked why the medical center treating 150,000 patients should be forced to close, the initial reaction of Mr. Pallone of New Jersey and Mr. McDermott from Seattle, Washington, was that the medical center and I must be mistaken; we were wrong. They then stated that other hospitals had called them asking about this section as well.

Madam Speaker, something is terribly wrong in the House of Representatives if hospitals across this country are calling committees in a panic to find out if health care legislation is forcing them to shut down.

Subsequently, after some lengthy discussion in the early morning hours, the two Democrat committee representatives eventually acknowledged that I just might be right about what's going to happen in Wenatchee, and they said that's just what they intend to happen under this bill. Let me restate this. This is not an unintended consequence. It is an intentional consequence. My colleague from Seattle said that some people might squeal about what this bill does, but he stated that's what was needed to be done to save money. This bill saves money by putting the medical center out of business?

I sought to fix this provision by offering an amendment to the Rules Committee with Mrs. McMorris Rodgers from Washington whose constituents would also be affected by this bill. Our amendment simply would have removed one requirement of the bill that would force certain hospitals to close if more than 40 percent were owned by physicians. I'm dismayed, Madam Speaker, that on straight party-line vote that amendment was not allowed to be debated on the floor today.

Madam Speaker, I voted to create the SCHIP program, and I believe it must be renewed, but when we are faced with a bill that puts Medicare plans of over 150,000 seniors in Washington at risk and threatens the closure of the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center and all the patients it serves, I can't support this legislation.

I must ask, what else does this bill do that's not being explained? What other undiscovered ways will it reduce citizens' access to health care?

It doesn't have to be this way, Madam Speaker. This House can defeat this closed rule and we can have an opportunity to open the process. And with that, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) 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, this rule will allow the House to consider a conference report that provides for the conservation and development of water and related resources and authorizes the construction of various projects in order to improve rivers and harbors in the United States.

Our Nation's water resource infrastructure is critical to our economy, transportation system, power generation, flood control, and environmental protection and restoration. This is especially true in the Pacific Northwest. Our region's river system is a great resource, one that must be well managed and protected.

Hydroelectric dams provide clean, low-cost, renewable power. These facilities also provide a system of locks that allow for the efficient transport of tons of agricultural products to coastal ports, which reduces congestion on our highways and our rail systems.

The coastal ports that receive the river-barged goods and products are the gateways to overseas markets and also need very careful attention. The success of farmers and manufacturers throughout the Northwest depend upon these ports being navigable and appropriately maintained.

Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions of this conference report that are important to the communities and individuals that I represent in central Washington that I would like to highlight. Like the WRDA bill that passed the House in the last Congress and the one that passed in April of this year, I am particularly pleased that the conference report includes a provision to permit the Corps of Engineers employees working at the dams in the Pacific Northwest to participate in wage surveys that are conducted to determine their rate of pay. This important provision will allow these employees the same participation allowed to similar employees at dams in the region operated by the Bonneville Power Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation.

This conference report also includes language that will allow the Corps to specifically give credit to the Port of Sunnyside in my district for funding it has invested to maintain progress on its wetland restoration and wastewater treatment project. This project is a creative initiative by the Port of Sunnyside to improve the river habitat and provide for greater economic growth in the local community. This provision ensures that the Port of Sunnyside gets proper credit for the funds it invests as it works with the Corps to make this project a reality.

Finally, this legislation lifts Corps restrictions on the development of several Port of Pasco properties. I am very hopeful that the elimination of these flowage easements will allow beneficial uses of this prime riverfront property to move forward for the betterment of the city of Pasco and the Tri-Cities.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by a change in a law inserted into this final bill that expressly authorizes the Secretary of the Army to approve removal of small dams under the Corps of Engineers Section 206 program.

The House is expected to consider a Democrat energy bill at some point this week, and I believe it doesn't bode well that we start off with making the removal of dams easier in this country. Dams provide power, drinking water, irrigation, transportation, and flood control. We need to value these benefits and recognize that hydropower dams are a clean and renewable energy resource.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides regular review and updating of congressional direction to the Corps of Engineers and ensures that existing projects are maintained and that new needs are met.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Brown.

Will the gentleman yield?

As the gentleman knows, because we're both from the Northwest, we have large dams that I alluded to in my remarks that provide hydroelectric power for all of the Northwest. And I know the provision in this bill does not apply to those dams. But, nevertheless, I think we in the Northwest need to be cognizant of the fact that, once you start these things, sometime in the future it may go up.

A point that I am simply making is that that is a major part, those dams on the Snake River and the Columbia River are major power sources for all of our electrical power and, therefore, for our economy. And I am just simply concerned because sometimes we don't look longer term enough. But if we look longer term enough and we start putting provisions in where it is a regular thing of takeout dams, then perhaps in the future, I hope not, I will do everything I can, but perhaps in the future that all of a sudden somebody will take a shot at those larger dams. I think that would be detrimental to our economy in the Northwest.

I yield back to my friend.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I appreciate the gentleman simply saying that this is intended to go after dams that probably need to be looked at for a variety of reasons. And, in that sense, I obviously don't have a problem. My problem is long term, as I suggested, but I appreciate the gentleman working with me.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a member of the T&I Committee, Mr. Duncan.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Again, I am particularly sensitive, because of the nature of the dams that we are talking about on the Snake River and on the Columbia River in my State. But there's also larger dams throughout the Pacific Northwest. My understanding of this legislation, it was talking about dams, as the gentleman from Oregon described. I understand that. So I appreciate the chairman's consideration.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate that. I think it is something we need to look at. We have oversight nevertheless, anyway.

If the gentlewoman is prepared to close, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, this Agricultural, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration appropriations bill provides more than $18.8 billion in discretionary spending for the next fiscal year. This bill represents an increase in spending by nearly 6 percent over last year's bill and continues the trend of the Democrat majority choosing to provide spending increases well above the rate of inflation and putting each taxpayer in the country on a path towards an average $3,000 increase in their Federal tax bill. Madam Speaker, this is too great a burden for the American taxpayer to pay.

As many of my colleagues know, I represent one of the premier agriculture districts in the country. Central Washington is rightfully famous for its apples, cherries, wine and many other farm and ranch products. The programs funded under this bill are of great importance to the communities I represent, and there are some provisions in the bill that I do indeed support.

For example, I am pleased that funding is maintained for rural development, which provides critical financial help to rural communities across the country. This bill also fully funds the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which provides on-the-ground technical assistance to farmers and ranchers dealing with soil and water management issues. I also note that this bill maintains a provision that I have long supported which allows Americans to be able to purchase drugs in other countries at lower prices and bring them back to the United States lawfully.

However, Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed that this bill cuts Agriculture Research Service funding by over $50 million compared to last year. I represent three Agriculture Research Service labs, two of which are collocated with Washington State University research facilities. Federally sponsored agriculture research not only improves crop productivity, it also helps farmers and ranchers find solutions to environmental and marketing challenges.

Many agriculture research initiatives were already facing the prospect of cutting essential research programs and researchers. Surely, Madam Speaker, with such a big increase over last year's spending level, we could have found room to at least protect the level of research being conducted today.

I am concerned about the potential impacts of these cuts and what it would mean for facilities in my district, in particular the Agriculture Research Service lab in Prosser. I intend to continue to work with my colleagues from Washington to ensure that we provide the funding necessary to maintain the important agriculture research activities already underway at these facilities.

I am also disappointed that this bill provides only $10 million for the Specialty Crops Block Grant program. This program provides grants distributed by the State departments of agriculture to assist the development, production and marketing of fruits and vegetables. Earlier this year, I joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues in asking that this program be fully funded at the $44.5 million level. This bill falls far short on this account.

Madam Speaker, if we pass this rule today, the House will begin consideration of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration appropriations bill. While this must be accomplished in a timely manner, the Senate in fact will not begin consideration of this bill until September and there is, frankly, a more pressing issue facing our Nation today.

Watching the news and reading the newspapers, Americans are reminded each day that the United States remains vulnerable to another terrorist attack. It is vital that our laws keep us one step ahead of the terrorists, but currently, Madam Speaker, we lag behind.

Right now, Federal law ties the hands of our intelligence community, causing them to miss significant portions of intelligence, all because technological advances have outpaced Federal law. We cannot wait to respond only after another attack. We must act today.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I will be calling on my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous question, we will give Members the ability to vote today on the merits of changing current law to ensure our intelligence community has the tools they need to protect our Nation from a potentially imminent terrorist attack.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed my friend from Massachusetts would not respond to my asking him to yield when he spoke just a moment ago, and I am not discounting at all how important the provisions in this agriculture bill, how important they are, notwithstanding some of the problems that I have.

But this issue that we are talking about, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, is very important and it is timely right now. Right now.

Let me explain how this process works, because this does not slow down. And I shouldn't say it doesn't slow it down; it slows it down for one hour. Can't we take 1 hour to debate this issue?

If the previous question is defeated, and I will call for it to be defeated on the floor. If it is defeated, then the rule will be amended to take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments for one hour to debate up or down.

This issue is very, very important and it is timely that it gets acted on before Congress leaves for the August district work period. So this does not slow down agriculture. It is not saying anything disparaging about agriculture.

And, frankly, Madam Speaker, I should know. I live in an agriculture- based economy. All of my neighbors are involved, in one way or the other, in agriculture. So I should know the importance of it.

But I also know the importance of taking up this issue regarding FISA and doing it right now, doing it this week, doing it today, by defeating the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/ 2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Ag appropriations committee, Mr. Kingston of Georgia.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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

The House of Representatives is expected to adjourn later this week for the August district work period. This district work period gives Members the opportunity to leave this humid area in Washington D.C. to work in their respective districts and listen to what is on the minds of the people that we all represent. Congressional ratings are at an all-time low, and I feel that is in part due to the fact that Congress is failing to address pressing issues.

I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, as I mentioned earlier. Voting ``no'' will not delay the consideration of the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration appropriations bill.

Let me qualify that. It will delay it for 1 hour. It will, however, give Members the opportunity to vote on the merits of updating current law so that our intelligence community has the tools it needs to monitor the telephone conversations of foreign terrorists physically located in foreign countries. Let me repeat that, foreign terrorists in foreign countries.

I hope that the Democrat majority will not stall any longer in allowing the House to vote on this very vital issue. Each minute we wait to act, our Intelligence Committee could be missing vital information, therefore increasing our risk of another attack on U.S. soil.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 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, the largest overall industry in my State is agriculture and food processing. I represent the central part of Washington State where a wide variety of agriculture products are produced, including apples, cherries, pears, wheat, dairy hops, wine grapes and potatoes, just to name a few. In addition, our farmers and ranchers are stewards of the land, and many of them participate in conservation programs that fall under the farm bill. For these reasons, my constituents have a lot at stake when it comes to farm policy.

The Committee on Agriculture has historically worked in a bipartisan manner, especially on such important issues as the farm bill. Just over a year ago, I was pleased that the Agriculture Committee came to my district and held a farm bill hearing in Yakima, in my district. Mr. Cardoza, now Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte were all there. I appreciate their having traveled to my corner of the country to hear directly from the farmers in central Washington.

They heard firsthand the importance of specialty crops, fruits and vegetables to the overall ag economy. I'm pleased that the underlying bill, the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act, as approved by the committee, recognizes the needs of specialty crop producers by increasing investments in the Market Access Program, the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, the Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program, and establishes a much needed National Clean Plant Network. These are all important steps in the right direction.

Unfortunately, all of the good things in this bill and the spirit of bipartisan cooperation were completely overturned by a last-minute addition of a multi-billion dollar tax increase. This surprise offset is totally unacceptable because it will cost American jobs, and it has completely bypassed the public process of discussions and hearings in the respective committees of jurisdiction, and it has disrupted the tradition of bipartisan cooperation on farm policies.

I have many speakers, Mr. Speaker, on my side who will be discussing the impact of these surprise tax increases, again, that were not subject to hearings or markups by the appropriate committees. The full scope of these tax hikes and fees just appeared at the Rules Committee this morning at 8 a.m., with no one willing to testify about them or disclose the full impact of these measures on our economy. And we are talking about multi-billion dollar increases.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to express my disappointment that a bipartisan amendment I submitted to the Rules Committee with the support of Mr. McNerney from California, Mr. Hoekstra of Michigan, was not made in order to help American asparagus growers. Under the Andean Trade Preferences Act of 1991, the Congress gave Peru duty-free access to the U.S. market on a unilateral basis. This was done in the hope that it would encourage the Peruvians to develop alternatives to growing narcotic-producing crops.

Unfortunately, it led to a flood of Peruvian asparagus imports, which has devastated the asparagus growers and processors in my home State of Washington, Michigan and in California. The U.S. International Trade Commission has repeatedly cited U.S. asparagus as the one farm commodity substantially harmed by the Andean Trade Preferences Act.

My amendment would have simply given the Secretary of Agriculture the option of providing transition payments to these growers. After all, American asparagus growers were not harmed by their own actions, but rather by government's antidrug policies. They should not have to pay the full brunt of the price.

Unfortunately, the leadership of this House has decided that these growers don't deserve a place at the table. We are poised to give billions away under this bill, but the House leadership can't find time to help these small farmers who were harmed by their own government.

Mr. Speaker, the rule denies Members the opportunity to represent their constituents by coming to the floor and offering amendments to this bill. It prohibits a separate vote on whether or not to include billions of dollars in tax increases, and it denies open debate on those issues. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 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 am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I have a letter in front of me from a number of companies that are subsidiaries of companies that are based abroad, and they say in this letter to oppose the tax increase and vote against the rule on H.R. 2419. And one of the signatories of this letter is Ben and Jerry's Homemade from my friend's home State of Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Goodlatte.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a classmate of mine, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Weller from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Linder.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire of my friend from California, we have a number of requests for time, and I'm not sure that I have enough time. I wonder if the gentleman would entertain a chance to expand our time on both sides.

If the gentleman would, I would like to ask unanimous consent that each side get an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would just communicate with my friend to at least keep his options open, if he wouldn't mind, later on and maybe we can revisit this.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to insert into the Record a letter that I referenced earlier in which the signature to this letter is Ben and Jerry's Homemade, Inc.

Dear Member of Congress: As U.S. subsidiaries of companies

based abroad, we are writing to express our strong opposition

to including Rep. Lloyd Doggett's bill, H.R. 3160 in the farm

bill. This measure is a discriminatory tax targeted

specifically at companies insourcing jobs into the U.S. We

urge you to vote against the Rule on H.R. 2419 to demonstrate

that you oppose targeting companies with significant

employment in the United States.

Companies like ours play an important role in the growth

and vitality of the U.S. economy, provide high-paying jobs

for five million Americans and account for almost one-fifth

of all U.S. exports. Discriminatory measures, like the

Doggett legislation, send a hostile signal to our companies

and other international investors. This bill will certainly

dissuade companies like ours from choosing the United States

as a location for job creating investment.

The provision under consideration would violate many of our

bilateral tax treaties and could lead to retaliatory actions

by other countries or withdrawal by our treaty partners from

exiting treaties, harshly affecting U.S.-based businesses.

Congress has not held any hearings on this issue. There is

no evidence that existing safeguards in current treaties are

not effective. Further, if material tax abuses were evident;

Treasury Secretary Paulson would not have strongly opposed

this proposal.

We urge you to vote against the Rule on H.R. 2419 and to

demonstrate your opposition to discriminatory tax increases

on companies that support employment in the United States.

AEGON USA, Inc, Akzo Nobel, Alcatel-Lucent, Alcon

Holdings, Inc, Allianz of America, BASF, Ben & Jerry's

Homemade, Inc., Honda North America, Inc, ING Americas,

Inc, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Suez

Energy North America, Swiss Re, Thomson Corporation,

Unilever.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to once again inquire of my friend from California if we can have extended time on this. I would ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that that happened, because we have seen the passion on this side of people talking about tax policy that has not had a hearing in the committees of jurisdiction in both cases, and we are restricted to only 1 hour to talk about that, without any extension at all.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend from Texas, a member of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Conaway.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly associate myself with my friend from Oregon's remarks.

We have different issues. But I think the issue is exactly the same.

With that, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a former member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I have more speakers than I have time, and I would like to inquire of my friend if he would like to entertain the proposition I offered a moment ago.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes for each side.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a member of one of the committees that was denied any opportunity to talk about the tax provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Kentucky, a classmate of mine, Mr. Whitfield.