Floor Statements

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

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 want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill provides more than $53.5 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2008, which is over 6 percent more than last year's enacted level.

While I support some of the increases in this bill that support our national priorities, such as counterterrorism and crime-fighting initiatives, I'm concerned that this bill falls in line with the spend now, tax later philosophy of the Democrat majority. This philosophy, as outlined in the Democrats' budget plan, puts each taxpayer on the path toward an average $3,000 increase in their Federal tax bill. This, once again, is another burden for the average taxpayer to bear.

Rather than prioritizing spending and making the tough choices, this bill aims to solve our Nation's problems by simply spending more money. This also ignores real threats to our security that must be addressed.

So, Mr. Speaker, one very serious problem that must be addressed before Congress adjourns next week, and that is changing 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.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff earlier this month indicated that the United States remains vulnerable to another terrorist attack, and that recent chatter levels are near those levels prior to September 11, 2001. But because of our failure to respond to technological advances, current law ties the hands of our Intelligence Community since significant portions of our intelligence is being missed, intelligence that could prevent a future attack on our Nation.

If we expect our Intelligence Community to do everything in their power under the law to protect our Nation against a future attack, then we must give them the resources and tools they need to stay ahead of those who wish to harm us.

It is vital that we act immediately to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to clarify that the United States no longer will be required to get a warrant to listen to terrorists who are not in the United States.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. In order to clarify, change the law in order to clarify that the United States no longer will be required to get a warrant to listen to terrorists who are not in the United States. Each minute we wait to act, our Intelligence Community could be missing vital information, increasing our risk of another attack on U.S. soil.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question on the rule so that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act can be immediately modernized.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who is a leader in this body on national security issues.

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

Let me talk about this process of defeating the previous question so we can take up the amendment regarding the FISA Act.

This does not slow down the process at all. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker; this does not slow down the process at all. It simply makes in order, with the appropriate waivers, to discuss the amendment that was described by Mrs. Wilson from New Mexico.

This is a very, very serious issue. It has been described by a number of people how important this is to our Intelligence Community. And by definition, it falls into the area of secure knowledge. But for those that are on the committees of jurisdiction, those that hear this on a regular basis, we need to act on it sooner than later. And we can act on it today without slowing down the process whatsoever by defeating the previous question, voting ``no'' on the previous question.

I will be submitting an amendment that will be made in order, with the appropriate waivers, and we can debate the issue. It sounds to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is strong bipartisan support in order to achieve this end that has been described. We have the opportunity to do it now. We ought to do it before the August recess.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I am asking 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 that they need to help protect our Nation from a potentially imminent terrorist attack.

And with that, 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, 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. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I think the gentleman, in his opening remarks, said something that currently should be expanded. Current law within HUD has an Office of Economic Development, and its responsibility, and I want to quote what its responsibility is, it ``works with public and private sectors as well as not-for-profit organizations to provide financial and technical assistance to local communities to develop and implement their own economic development and community revitalization strategies.'' Now, that's current law. If the gentleman believes that that agency shouldn't exist, then certainly he can introduce a bill, and we can have a worthy debate on that. But that is existing law.

And it is within that context, then, as this relates to my district, which is a very diverse agriculture area, labor intensive in many of the specialty crops, but there is a new industry that is emerging in my district, and that is the wine industry. It's only about 35 years old. Historically, the wine industry in this country has always been in California. This is emerging in my district, and it has the benefit, then, of economic development to expand, to bring more tourists into this area, which means there's more hotels, more restaurants. That is the very definition of what economic development is all about.

So let me be very, very clear on this. This project is fully consistent with requirements for projects normally and routinely funded under this program and existing programs.

And I might add, it is named for an individual who has been widely recognized as the father of the Washington wine industry. He is the one who convinced farmers to transfer some of their lands to growing wine grapes. And, frankly, they've been very successful.

There has been $5 million raised by other governmental agencies and quasi-governmental agencies to build this center. This is part of that. What it demonstrates to me is that there is a strong commitment of this wide community that identifies this as a local economic development project.

So while there has been a lot of discussion with the earmarks this year, and I suspect we will have more of those discussions, I firmly believe that within existing laws and within the context of economic development, this falls into a category that I feel very, very comfortable with in saying that we ought to earmark dollars for this center because it will expand the economic development in this largely rural area that I have the privilege of representing. So, to me, it is an example of what the economic development initiative is supposed to be.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me restate again that it is existing law within HUD of this office that provides for economic development. I am simply following the law and exercising my right as a Member of Congress, who is part of the writing of the appropriation bills, to earmark what I think is important for my district.

Now, if the gentleman wants to, as I mentioned in my previous remarks, if he wants to have a debate on whether that office ought to exist, well, I think that is worthy of debate. In fact, I would have suggested to the gentleman that maybe he should have defunded completely the whole office; therefore, he could have been at least consistent rather than picking out one project that I think is worthy, following what the requirements are of the Economic Development Office.

So with that, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Flake amendment as it relates to the Walter Clore Center.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Snoqualmie Pass Land Conveyance Act would transfer an acre and a half of Forest Service land to the King and Kittitas Counties Fire District No. 51--also known as Snoqualmie Pass Fire and Rescue. This land would be conveyed at no cost, but would have to be used by the Fire District specifically for the constructon of a new fire station or it would revert back to the federal government.

Mr. 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.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this proposed rule would provide for consideration of the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education appropriations bill, the seventh out of 12 appropriation bills to be considered by the House this year.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that for the seventh time we are considering this appropriations bill under an open rule that allows every Member of the House the opportunity to come to the floor and to offer his or her amendment to the bill. Except for in the instance earlier this year when the House considered the final fiscal year 2007 spending bill, which allocated $463 billion of taxpayer dollars while denying all Members of the House the opportunity to amend the bill, this rule continues a long-standing tradition of openness on spending bills.

Mr. Speaker, the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education appropriations bill provides over $607 billion to support the Federal Government's role in labor, health and education programs. Of this total, over $455 billion, or 75 percent, is comprised of spending for government programs that grow automatically every year with little congressional review. For the next fiscal year alone, these programs will increase by an estimated $54 billion, nearly 12 percent, which I might add, Mr. Speaker, is three or four times the rate of inflation.

Without question, these programs pose the largest threat to our long- term economic health because they essentially run on autopilot with little accountability to the taxpayers writing the checks. If we want to get spending under control, it is vital that we take a hard look at these programs sooner rather than later.

The remaining money in this appropriations bill is set by Congress each

year. For the last fiscal year, $144 billion was provided to support the Federal Government's role in labor, health and education programs, but for the upcoming fiscal year, the underlying bill provides for $151 billion, an increase of $7 billion.

Mr. Speaker, while I support some of the increases in the bill, such as an increased funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, I do have concerns with the overall increased spending level in this difficult budget year. I believe that Congress must always stop and remember that we are spending the American taxpayers' money when considering appropriations bills. Each time a decision is made to spend more money, taxpayers face a higher tax bill or the deficit faces an increase in leaving our children and grandchildren to foot the bill. Therefore, we must take a balanced approach that provides for the general welfare of our Nation while reducing the deficit.

It's important that taxpayers are aware that under the Democrat majority's budget plan, each taxpayer faces an average $3,000 increase in their Federal tax bill in order to pay for the Democrats' spending spree over the next 5 years, as reflected in their budget.

Throwing money at all of our Nation's problems will not make them go away. The American people expect more of Congress. They expect us to tackle the difficult issues, make tough decisions and lower the deficit through fiscal restraint.

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

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

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

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 such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the Democrat majority approved what I consider an irresponsible budget plan that calls for more spending now followed by massive tax increases in the future. Their budget plan only called for one committee, the Education and Labor Committee, to find cost savings, and that turned out, Mr. Speaker, to be a mere $750 million over 5 years.

In comparison, when Republicans were in control, the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution called on eight House and Senate committees to find a total of $35 billion in savings over 5 years. As a result, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Deficit Reduction Act, which saved American taxpayers $38 billion.

House Resolution 531 provides for the consideration of the Democrat majority's attempt to rein in spending, the College Cost Reduction Act. However, Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than an illusion. While the bill does find savings, it immediately spends most of it, $18 billion, to create nine new entitlement programs. These entitlement programs, which grow automatically every year without congressional review, pose the largest threat to our long-term economic health. Essentially, these programs run on auto pilot with no accountability to the taxpayers writing the check.

Entitlement programs currently today make up well over half of the Federal budget and in the next decade will consume nearly two-thirds of our budget. History has proven that once an entitlement program is created, it lives forever, and even improving these programs has proven to be a very difficult task.

Taxpayers will be paying for the new entitlement programs created under this proposal for at least 5 years and likely for many years to come, thus wiping out any savings that may be achieved with this bill in the short term.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I share the goal of increasing access to higher education. Education in general

is very important to the future of our country. But there are many approaches the Democrat majority has chosen to take in this bill that shifts the responsibility for personal decisions made by students to the taxpayers. For instance, this bill guarantees that borrowers, no matter how much they borrow, will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their income in loan payments and allows the borrowers to have the balance of their loans disappear, disappear, Mr. Speaker, after 20 years and thus be paid for by the American taxpayer. This bill also requires those same taxpayers to pick up the outstanding student loan tab for public sector employees after just 10 years. Now, Mr. Speaker, while I agree we should encourage people to enter the public sector, I feel this approach places too heavy a fiscal burden on American taxpayers.

I believe that we must do all that we can do to make education more affordable for those who wish to pursue their education so that more Americans can achieve the dream of graduating from college. With tuition costs on the rise, students and their families are facing the inevitable question of how to pay for college education. The cost of attaining a college degree has increased over the years, and students are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for college without financial assistance.

So I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must take a balanced approach that increases the transparency of higher education costs and targets aid to the neediest students while controlling spending and lowering the deficit.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will support the McKeon substitute amendment, which increases the maximum Pell Grant award by $350 next year and $100 thereafter and provides a plan for improved accountability with regard to tuition costs.

If the McKeon amendment is not adopted, I will oppose the College Cost Reduction Act, which increases a maze of Federal regulations and bureaucracy for students and parents to navigate, directs more resources to institutions of higher education rather than students, and creates new entitlement spending at the long-term expense of the American taxpayer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just point out to my friend from Massachusetts that, since Republicans have been in control, that Pell Grants, individually, have nearly doubled in that length of time. I think the students are being well served, and they are responsible. And I think that is a very, very good policy.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Minnesota, a member of the Education and Workforce Committee (Mr. Kline).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. McKeon of California.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), another member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who spent a long career in education and also a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, 19 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee. Sadly, the Democrats only allowed one single amendment to be considered, as the ranking member pointed out. Even more concerning is that this rule provides that the Miller manager's amendment shall be considered as adopted once this resolution is adopted, if in fact it is adopted.

They have carefully chosen to self-execute this amendment which does

not allow for a separate debate or clarification on the amendment, and the maneuver prohibits Members from voting specifically on the Miller manager's amendment. Members should be aware that the Miller manager's amendment reduces the amount of short-term savings to taxpayers.

In addition, if this rule is adopted, the misdirected College Cost Reduction Act can be fast-tracked through the Senate and therefore protected from filibuster.

So I am asking my colleagues to not only vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule, but also to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can amend the rule to allow the House to consider the amendment offered by Mr. Castle of Delaware and provide the appropriate waivers.

As the ranking member pointed out, the Castle amendment would simply end the entitlements in this bill. I think that is a very important policy statement. Further, the savings from these entitlements would go to increase the Pell Grants by $100 in the next 2 years and $50 through 2018. So by defeating the previous question, we will give Members the ability to vote on the merits of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment 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, I want to thank my friend from California for yielding me the time.

I have to say that I stand here in opposition to this bill, and I am one that generally supports fair trade liberalization efforts. I believe that when properly structured, trade agreements can benefit all parties involved. But, Mr. Speaker, the Andean Trade Preference Act is not a trade agreement. This is an agreement to give access to the U.S. market in return for reduced drug production by certain Andean countries. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. This is an agreement to give access to the U.S. market in return for reduced drug production by certain Andean countries.

The original idea may have been a noble one, and it probably still is, but the Act has proven to be a failure, and as a result, American asparagus growers have paid the price. In practice, the Andean Trade Preference Act has resulted in higher South American drug production and a steep loss of acreage and processing of asparagus in the United States, as reflected by this chart where in the last 16 years the amount of acreage has been reduced by 50 percent.

A recent International Trade Commission report found that asparagus was the domestic commodity most negatively affected by the Act. Unlike other sectors, American asparagus growers were not provided a transition period before tariffs on Peruvian imports were unilaterally eliminated. Since implementation of the Andean Trade Preference Act of 1991, imports of Peruvian asparagus have increased by more than 20 times. These duty-free imports have decimated U.S. asparagus growers and closed domestic asparagus processing plants in my district.

Now, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if you are not from an asparagus production area in this country, you may be thinking this trade-off is worth it because it results in less drug production. The unfortunate reality is that this Act is a failure in that regard too. The latest studies confirm that cocaine production in the Andean countries is actually higher today than when the Andean Trade Preference Act was adopted in 1991.

In other words, we have exported jobs from rural America to these Andean countries and we are still seeing narcotics production going up. Nevertheless, we are here asking American farmers to sacrifice their livelihoods to perpetuate a wholly unrelated and unsuccessful anti- narcotics strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I also regret that we are considering an extension of this flawed policy under a process that denies Members the opportunity to amend the bill, the text of which was not even available until a couple of hours ago. This is being rushed to the floor with no time to debate or offer amendments. The markup of this bill in Ways and Means was cancelled. The bill has not gone through the Rules Committee. The House should have an opportunity to have a full and fair debate on this Act, which has a profound negative effect on my constituents.

So I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

I will insert into the Record an article from the Seattle Times that more fully points out the dilemma that asparagus growers have suffered, and,

also, I will insert into the Record an article from the New York Times regarding the plight of asparagus growers as a result of this Act.

[From the Seattle Times, Jan. 2, 2007]

New Hope for Asparagus Growers

Washington asparagus growers might get a break in the new

Democrat-controlled Congress.

They sure need it.

The industry has been decimated by a U.S. drug policy

designed to encourage Peruvian coca-leaf growers to switch to

asparagus. Passed in 1990 and since renewed, the Andean Trade

Preferences and Drugs Eradication Act permits certain

products from Peru and Colombia, including asparagus, to be

imported to the United States tariff-free.

The act was set to expire Dec. 31, but Congress approved a

six-month extension to make time to negotiate a proposed

free-trade agreement.

We believe world markets should be more open and barriers

to trade should be lowered. But this trade preferences act,

when it comes to asparagus, is a one-sided deal that does

only harm to the U.S. industry while failing miserably at its

stated intent of reducing drug production.

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy Web

site currently notes that the Peruvian coca acreage, mostly

in the highlands, is the highest it has been in eight years.

Meanwhile, the small country has become a powerhouse in

asparagus production along its Pacific Coast lowlands.

Peruvian asparagus production has multiplied 18-fold. The

industry has developed a vigorous market and attracted

sizable capital investment.

Meanwhile, the Washington industry is a shadow of its

former self. Acreage has been cut by 71 percent to just 9,000

acres. In 2005, Seneca closed the world's largest cannery in

Dayton, Columbia County, and shipped its state-of-the-art

equipment to--no surprise--Peru. So did Del Monte, when it

closed its Toppenish plant.

Is it any wonder the U.S. asparagus industry hopes the

preferences act will be allowed to lapse in June?

That's not to say the Washington Asparagus Commission has

its head in the sand over the global economy. In particular,

the commission is willing to support a proposed free-trade

agreement with provisions common to other free-trade

agreements.

The industry wants the tariff re-imposed on Peruvian

asparagus but only during the U.S. growing season--roughly

April through June in Washington--and then phased out over a

period of years. The tariff on U.S. production would diminish

also.

That would be a long, overdue solution for an industry

decimated by a drug-reduction policy that failed miserably.

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, the Rules Committee heard testimony nearly 2 weeks ago from my good friend and colleague from Washington, Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks and the Ranking Member Todd Tiahrt of Kansas. When they appeared before the Rules Committee, concerns were raised that the bill at that time did not include a list of earmarks or earmark sponsors and that no Member could challenge, discuss, and call for a vote on earmarks on the House floor.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, Republicans succeeded in forcing the Democrat majority to restore the earmark transparency and enforceability rules that they had changed at the beginning of this Congress, and now spending bills are being brought to the floor with earmarks where they can be discussed, debated, and voted upon, as they should be.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the fiscal year 2008 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill that we will consider today contains a list of earmarks and the names of the sponsors of those earmarks. This means that Members will have the opportunity to review them before casting their vote on the House floor and not just see them added months from now, as was previously tried.

Mr. Speaker, the Central Washington area that I represent covers more than 19,000 square miles, much of which is controlled and managed by the Federal Government. The Federal agencies funded in this bill directly impact those that I represent on a number of levels. When storms and mudslides wipe out trails and roads, it affects not only my constituents that enjoy camping, hiking, and hunting on public roads, but also visitors to the area and the local businesses that rely on tourism. When invasive species, plant pests, and wildfire threats are not adequately controlled on Federal land, the problems do not stop at the property line.

I think I speak for many Western Members of the House when I talk about the huge stake we have in the general direction of the agencies funded under this bill. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that at a time when Federal land agencies struggle to manage the land they now have, this Congress would provide tens of millions of dollars for the Federal Government to buy up more land. This takes private property off the tax rolls and leaves county governments with a heavier burden to pay for emergency services, roads, and schools.

I have stood on this floor before to discuss the importance of another program, the Secure Rural Schools program, which compensates local governments that are negatively affected by Federal forest land policy and ownership and the virtual shutdown of the Federal timber program over the last 15 years. We need to get the Secure Rural Schools program reauthorized and we need to get the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program fully funded for the long term before we start spending millions of dollars adding more and more land to the Federal estate.

Finally, I want to express my concern about the overall increase in spending that this bill represents. I know that the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member worked very hard to try to manage the many demands for funding under this bill. However, this bill represents a $680 million increase over last year. As I have said previously with respect to other appropriation bills this year, we simply must rein in spending in order to prevent the massive tax increases that the Democrat majority is poised to impose, as reflected in their budget.

Congress must work for balancing the Federal budget in 5 years. There are two ways to balance the budget, whether it is your family budget or the Federal budget. You can either, one, reduce the amount of money being spent or, two, increase the amount coming in. This bill highlights the Democrat majority's allegiance to option number two: spending more money each and every year and at a rate faster than inflation, while relying on tax increases to balance the budget down the road.

Mr. Speaker, we don't need a bigger Federal Government. We need a balanced approach that holds the line on spending; provides for our Nation's most fundamental priorities; and allows taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend, save, and invest as they see fit.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Washington, the chairman of the subcommittee.

As the chairman is aware, I have been concerned for some time with the issue of Federal land acquisition due to its effect on local tax rolls. Many of the counties that I represent are heavily federally owned. Some of them have strong reservations about Federal land acquisition.

I would like to say a word or two specifically about the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. As the chairman knows, I represent the northeastern part of the scenic area. The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic River Act, passed by Congress in 1986, authorized $40 million for land acquisition, $10 million for economic development grants, and $10 million for recreation grants for the scenic area. I am concerned that even though it has been 20 years since the Act was passed, the economic development and recreation accounts have yet to be fully funded. Meanwhile, the Forest Service has spent more than $55 million on land acquisition in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. I believe we should make it a priority to fund the economic development and recreation accounts as envisioned under the Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to Chairman Dicks for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman's remarks. I also

noted that the committee report includes $1 million for land acquisition in the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area requested by our colleagues, Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon and Mr. Baird of Washington. I would like to clarify with the chairman that it is not his intent that these funds would be spent on land acquisition in the part of the scenic area that I represent.

Again, I would be happy to yield to the chairman on this question.

I thank the chairman. I appreciate very much your comments. I look forward to working with you on issues related to the implementation of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Act.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee, by a voice vote, approved an open rule for the consideration of the Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation Act. I am pleased that this rule keeps with the longstanding tradition of allowing an open debate on spending bills. I support House Resolution 514.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. 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, at the beginning of this Congress, the Democrat majority chose to gut the earmark transparency and enforceability rules that the Republicans enacted just last year. They then decided to bring the spending bills to the floor that did not include earmarks so no Member could challenge, discuss, and call for a vote on the House floor.

Fortunately, the Republicans were successful in forcing the Democrat majority to restore earmark transparency and enforceability rules and bring spending bills to the floor with earmarks where they can be discussed, debated, and voted upon.

But, Mr. Speaker, let me be clear that the Fiscal Year 2008 Energy and Water appropriations bill before us today does not contain earmarks. However, Republican and Democrat leaders have reached an agreement that Members will have an opportunity to debate and vote on earmarks to be included in this bill before this bill is sent to the Senate, and I, along with my colleagues, will work to ensure that this promise is kept.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to point out that the underlying bill is of tremendous importance to the central Washington congressional district that I represent. I am pleased by the funding provided for Hanford cleanup and the efforts to ensure that the Richland Operations Office can meet legal cleanup milestones along the River Corridor and in transuranic waste retrievals.

However, I must say, Mr. Speaker, the funding level for the waste treatment plant at Hanford is of a concern to me. It is important for this House and the Congress to recognize that while the bill provides sufficient funds for construction in this fiscal year, this bill's funding level will require a significant boost in funding in just 2 years to keep the project on its new independently verified budget and schedule. We must acknowledge that the choices made on funding for the waste treatment plant in this bill require balancing with a substantial increase in the very near future.

I also, Mr. Speaker, support the funds vital to the operation of Pacific Northwest National Lab, particularly the DOE Office of Science and NNSA plan

to transition scientists' work in the 300 area to replacement lab facilities. This initiative is critical to our country's national security. And this bill provides a solid endorsement and boost to that project.

So, Mr. Speaker, when the Democrat majority keeps its promise to include earmarks and detail spending in this bill, we will know far more about the multibillion-dollar budgets of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. These are also of great importance to the irrigators, farmers and ports of Washington State and the Pacific Northwest.

Originally, as we know, the Democrat majority would have had this House consider the Energy and Water appropriations bill with a report that included page after page of blanks where dollar amounts should have been in the Army Corps and Reclamation budgets. But due to the demands of the Republicans, they will now fill in the blanks before and not after the House votes and sends this bill to the Senate. This will ensure that all Members will have an opportunity to review earmarks on the House floor and not just see them added months from now when they would have been beyond the scrutiny of a House vote.

We Republicans have secured a rules change to ensure this House and the American taxpayers can scrutinize earmarks, and that earmarks are subject to a vote of the House. This is the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker, and I'm pleased that the Democrat majority has agreed to Republican demands to restore transparency and openness on earmarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from California if she has any more requests. I have no more requests for time and I'm prepared to yield back if she is.

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

And this is a truly open rule that continues the longstanding tradition of providing open rules for appropriation bills. So therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support House Resolution 481, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 496) and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to point out that DHS provided approximately $2.25 million in prior years for conceptual design of this project. In addition, the FY07 Homeland Security appropriation bill provided $2 million for the continued design and initial construction of this facility. And I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his help last year. However, no funds were included in the FY08 budget request from DHS. The MOU calls for $25 million to be contributed by DHS to begin construction. If this funding is not included, the project will likely be delayed into future years, causing both DHS and DOE to lose important laboratory capabilities they need to keep our country safe.

Thank you for yielding. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the Chair as well, and look forward to working with both of you in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, we are very, very privileged tonight to have a guest on the floor. Little Cole Rodgers is here with his mother, Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

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, House Resolution 429 allows for consideration of H.R. 1100, the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site Boundary Revision Act, which would increase our Federal inventory of land by up to 115 acres. Rarely does the Rules Committee consider rules for bills making changes to historic sites because they are typically brought to the floor under suspension of the rules.

Mr. Speaker, coming from an area in central Washington that is 40 percent federally owned land mass, I believe we ought to be encouraging land exchanges where possible rather than more land purchases. The Federal land management agencies simply have too much land to manage effectively with their current level of funding. We all know there is a serious backlog of road, trail and facility maintenance on Federal lands. In many cases, Federal land agencies are struggling to manage invasive species, plant pests, and unnaturally high fuel loads that lead to catastrophic wildfires. Yet, year after year, we are spending precious tax dollars to buy up more private property and take it off the local tax rolls.

We need to make land exchanges and the orderly restructuring of Federal land holdings easier. The Federal Government owns and must maintain many small, isolated parcels of land that have no special resource value. We should make it easier for the Federal agencies to dispose of these properties and retain the proceeds to acquire lands that are high in resource value.

This is a practical solution that allows us to protect special places without having to spend limited tax dollars.

I would also add that there are many other issues, in my view more pressing matters, affecting public lands management that we could be considering today. For example, the extension of payments to forested counties for rural schools and roads. As many of my colleagues are aware, the Congress long ago promised rural communities that they would get a fair share of the revenue produced from Federal forestlands as compensation for the tax-exempt status of Federal forestlands.

However, unfortunately, special interest groups successfully used litigation under the Endangered Species Act to bring harvest to a standstill in many places like the Pacific Northwest. This left many counties struggling to pay for basic services while saddled with large areas of nontaxable Federal land. Although the House has passed legislation providing for a 1-year fix on this issue, we need a longer- term solution, and we need to get this legislation to the President's desk as soon as possible.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will soon have an opportunity to consider these and other issues impacting Federal land management.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I just point out that this is an increase of 44 percent over the current land value, and I know we're talking about acres and we're not talking about square miles. But to paraphrase former Senator Edward Dirksen, in another sense, you know, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real dollars. Well, we're talking about Federal land ownership, and I'm very sensitive to that because I come from the western part of the United States.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, 40 percent of my district is owned by the Federal Government, and I have some counties in which 75 percent of the counties' land mass is owned by the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

I just simply want to say that the gentleman from Texas, a member of the committee, was apparently told something by the subcommittee chairman and that wasn't carried out, and I think that's the point that he made. I am pleased that the committee has made these three amendments in order. They were debated, and I think the full House deserves that consideration.

I think the rule could have been, obviously, better if it were an open rule on a bill here that certainly is not that controversial.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 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.)

Madam Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 contains provisions that are important to our troops serving abroad, to our national security and to my constituents in central Washington. It authorizes more funding for force protection, including over $4 billion for vehicles designed to protect our troops from improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, in Iraq.

This legislation includes the Wounded Warrior Act, which passed the House earlier this year, that would help address the challenges that face our recovering servicemembers and families. This bill also extends the language enacted last year to prevent TRICARE copay increases.

In addition to providing the authorization levels that our servicemembers need, I am pleased that the language was included that emphasizes congressional support for the National Nuclear Security Administration's role in the 300 Area transition at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in my district and specifically at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

The National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department of Energy Office of Science and the Department of Homeland Security all signed a memorandum of understanding last year agreeing to funding commitments for this very important transition.

The committee has been helpful on this issue in the past, and I appreciate its continued support in Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's 300 Area

transition. A successful transition at the lab will make it possible for nearly 1,000 scientists to continue their work and allow key national security related missions to continue.

Another issue that is an issue of great importance is the ongoing cleanup of the Department of Energy's Hanford nuclear site, which is a legacy going back to World War II. I am pleased this committee, like in recent years, has supported my request to authorize the full $690 million needed for the waste treatment plant next year.

Construction of the waste treatment plan is a critical effort to clean up some of our Nation's most dangerous legacy nuclear waste. I am pleased this legislation recognizes the importance of this project.

In addition to authorizing the funding needed for cleanup at Hanford, I am pleased that we are working to address the concerns of Department of Energy nuclear site workers who suffered health effects from their work at government sites. This bill includes language similar to a bill I recently cosponsored that extends and increases the scope of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Ombudsman's Office so that it is still better to assist workers seeking compensation.

The Ombudsman's Office assists workers who have filed for compensation under this compensation program. These workers, Madam Speaker, played a vital role in our Nation's defense during the hot war and the Cold War. If it is found that their illness has been caused by their work, they deserve just and prompt compensation.

I am also pleased that funding is authorized to upgrade and expand the training range at the Yakima Training Center in my district. $29 million will be used to increase the size of the training space, allow for urban operation training, and support the digital systems used by today's Stryker forces. The new range is expected to be completed by August 2009, and will provide critical training for our active duty and Reserve Army soldiers.

Madam Speaker, while H.R. 1585 is a good bill, it is not a perfect bill. This bill cuts nearly $800 million in funding for a robust, layered ballistic missile defense system capable of intercepting missiles at all stages of flight. Despite recent missile tests in North Korea and the intelligence community's belief that within the next decade Iran will have missiles capable of reaching the United States, the Democrat majority of the House Armed Services Committee rejected a proposal to restore more than $764 million to the Missile Defense Agency's budget. I don't believe now is the time to slow down the development of a strong missile defense system. As ballistic missile threats increase, we must be able to develop the capabilities necessary to protect ourselves.

This bill also cuts $867 million from the Army's modernization program, the Future Combat Systems, which helps keep our Armed Forces prepared for future combat scenarios. It is important to find new technologies to optimize information flow and combat systems in the future, but the severe cuts in this bill puts the modernization of the Army in jeopardy. This 1-year cut is greater than cuts in the last 3 years combined.

Congressman Todd Akin from Missouri, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, put forward an amendment to the Rules Committee last night to restore $134 million for Future Combat Systems. But sadly, his amendment was rejected on a party-line vote by the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, a total of 135 amendments were allowed to be submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration, and this rule allows for consideration of 50 amendments on the floor today. I am deeply troubled that for the first time, the first time during my tenure in Congress and tenure on the Rules Committee, Members of Congress reported that they were actually prohibited, prohibited from submitting an amendment to the committee after the deadline.

Specifically, Congressman Akin from Missouri and Congressman Gingrey from Georgia attempted to offer second-degree amendments to an amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) concerning the morning-after pill.

These types of amendments by definition cannot be drafted until the text of the original amendment has been seen, and therefore, it was after the announced amendment deadline that each of those two Members, Akin and Gingrey, attempted to submit their amendments. But the submission, the submission itself was denied by the Democrat majority.

While amendments to amendments are not the norm of the House, Members certainly have had the ability to offer such amendments to the Rules Committee, or at least they did, Madam Speaker, until this week.

So let me be clear. The Democrat leadership actually denied Members of Congress the opportunity to have their amendments presented and then denied by the committee because typically amendments that are offered late are denied. But they didn't even have the opportunity to submit them late.

All Members of Congress are elected to this body and they have the duty to represent their constituents through the legislative process. The manner in which these Members of Congress were treated was unnecessary. Madam Speaker, I certainly hope it never happens again.

I am also disappointed that the Democrat majority has chosen to go out of its way to be inconsistent and change the rules and definitions, leaving Members of Congress questioning what rules and norms they should follow. Democrats on the Rules Committee have chosen to strictly enforce the amendment deadline on some occasions, but on others they have made amendments in order that were submitted past the deadline. They have changed the definition of rules, and for the first time in at least a decade they have outright rejected Members of Congress from submitting amendments to the Rules Committee for consideration.

Last year, the Speaker and Members of the current majority pledged that this Congress would be the most open Congress in history. However, on several occasions now the Rules Committee has literally closed the door on Members and denied them the opportunity to submit an amendment to the committee.

Madam Speaker, I remain optimistic. I tend to have that in my nature. But so far, I must say the new Democrat majority, so far their actions have spoken much, much louder than their words.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

I would ask the gentlewoman, how many of those 135 amendments were second-degree amendments?

None. That is precisely my point.

My point is how can a Member offer a second-degree amendment until an amendment has been offered to which a Member could respond to.

So the gentlelady talks about 135 amendments. That tends to be somewhere near the norm for Defense authorization bills in the past. So there is nothing outside that norm. I thank the gentlelady for making the point. None of the 135 were second-degree amendments, and my remarks were specifically addressed to second-degree amendments.

Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

It is true we, the minority members of the

Rules Committee, offered secondary amendments, but they are secondary amendments, and we had asked unanimous consent of the full committee to break the order because they were denied to be submitted on regular order.

So while, yes, we offered them and they were defeated on a party-line vote, had they been offered, they would have had a notation that they were late and they probably would have been rejected.

My point is you broke from tradition. You broke from tradition by not allowing a Member to submit an amendment late. That is my whole point. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).