Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I'd ask my friend from Florida how many speakers she has on her side.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Cole.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, a member of the Appropriations Committee (Mr. Latham).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can amend section 2(c) of this rule after ``shall not be subject to amendment'' and insert ``(except the amendment numbered 43 in the report, to be offered by Representative Michaud of Maine, or his designee).''

By defeating the previous question, Members will be able to offer amendments to the Michaud amendment, and a full and wide range of views can be discussed. Those rules were denied because we were not allowed to offer secondary amendments, at least, to the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately 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.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 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, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule.

The Intelligence Authorization Act generally receives strong bipartisan support. But let me be clear that the underlying bill does contain bipartisan provisions that are important to protecting our national security, make no bones about that.

However, the bill also contains a number of provisions that are of concern and could weaken our national security and intelligence capabilities by providing less than adequate resources and placing restrictions on our intelligence operations.

I am concerned that the Democratic leadership chose to include section 407 in the underlying bill. My friend from Florida talked at length about that provision, which would require our Nation's intelligence community to direct

its limited resources to a National Intelligence Estimate on global climate change.

I have to ask, what message are we sending to our allies and our enemies when Congress instructs our intelligence experts to stop what they are doing on issues that threaten American lives and, instead, focus on theoretical risks from global warming.

Furthermore, earlier this year, this House created a new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to focus on the risks of global warming. This is in addition to several Federal agencies that are already analyzing climate change. Congress should let this panel that was created, and existing Federal agencies, focus on climate change so that our intelligence analysts can focus on materials of classified information and work to prevent threats against American lives.

But I am pleased, I have to say, with the Rules Committee last night because they made in order an amendment to be offered by the ranking member, Mr. Hoekstra, of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that will strike section 407 and allow our spies to be spies. I think we can have a very good debate on that. I think we ought to have that debate. I am pleased that the Rules Committee made that amendment in order.

However, the Democratic leadership did deny several thoughtful amendments offered by Mr. Castle, Mr. Flake, Mr. Rogers of Michigan and Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule, which only allows 10 out of 433 Members of the House to offer their ideas on how to better strengthen our intelligence community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico, a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mrs. Wilson.

(Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so

that I can amend this rule to allow the House to consider an amendment offered by Representative Heather Wilson of New Mexico and provide the appropriate waivers for that amendment.

The Wilson amendment would modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to enhance the ability of our Nation to protect itself in times of war and elevated national security threats. And I think that point was made very, very eloquently by the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and rejected on a party-line vote the Wilson amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise my friend from Florida that I just got a request for time here, and that is being discussed right now, that I was not aware of.

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

Let me say, then, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we will have an opportunity to vote on the merits of this amendment.

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 am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. Speaker, I am going to once again urge

my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so the House can consider the amendment that I submitted from Heather Wilson of New Mexico.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, to report on a plan for fulfilling its infrastructure commitments at our national laboratories.

I want to thank my two Washington State colleagues, Mr. Norman Dicks and Mr. Dave Reichert, a member of the committee, for their co- sponsorship of this amendment.

This amendment ensures that national laboratory infrastructure changes will not interrupt security programs needed by DHS.

When DHS was established, it inherited facilities around the Nation and from other agencies, some of which were aging and in need of repair. These capital facilities include critical components involving radiological and nuclear countermeasures, threat vulnerabilities and threat assessments, as well as work on biological and chemical countermeasures. In order for DHS to carry out its mission to protect our Nation, it is critical that the Department have the facilities that it needs.

At the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL, in Washington State, critical DHS research and development will be transferred to new facilities as existing labs are torn down for environmental cleanup activities at the 300 Area of the Hanford Federal nuclear site in my district.

In 2006, the DHS Under Secretary for Science and Technology signed an MOU with the Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration that established funding commitments for the agencies involved in the transition of PNNL's facilities from the 300 Area to new lab space. This MOU underscores DHS's critical role in making sure national security related work at PNNL will not be interrupted by this transition.

This amendment I have introduced is not only important to the State of Washington and my constituents but also to our overall national security. I understand that this has been accepted on both sides, and I want to thank Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for agreeing to agree with that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the ranking member from New York.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule. This closed rule provides for consideration of a bill to Federally recognize six new Indian tribes in the State of Virginia. This bill marks the first time in over 20 years that the House of Representatives has considered legislation to extend Federal recognition to a tribe.

While I will acknowledge Congress can grant Federal recognition to individual tribes, the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs has the administrative process by which a group may establish itself as an Indian tribe and become eligible for services and benefits extended to other tribes under Federal law.

While each of these six tribes have separately submitted a petition for recognition to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, none of the petitions are complete. Rather than wait for these petitions to go through the administrative process, the Democrat majority has decided to bring this legislation to the floor under a completely closed rule, which allows no input or improvements to be made to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, despite commitments made by the Democrats for a new era of openness, the Rules Committee has only approved one truly open rule that allowed Members of Congress to come to the floor and offer amendments during consideration of a bill. House Resolution 377 is the 18th closed rule brought forth by the Democrat majority, which means that this is the 18th time the Democrat majority has shut Members of Congress out of the deliberative process. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Virginia laying out his remarks on this and his arguments on this, but it seems to me if there is this much work done with it, we certainly should have an open process because of all the compromises made, rather than a closed process.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

I have no more requests for time, so I'll close.

Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest that the exchange that we have had here back and forth between the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Florida begs to a process

that should be much more open. Clearly there are some issues that were raised.

My friend from Connecticut talked about the process and the fact that this may be bypassing the process. Maybe an open process would have allowed us to pursue that, but we don't have that opportunity. We have a closed rule dealing only with six tribes. I think that is significant.

So, Mr. Speaker, as a majority member of the House Rules Committee in the last Congress, I just want to point out that nearly 16 percent of the rules by that committee in the last Congress were open rules and 84 percent were restrictive or closed.

Thus far in this Congress, the 110th Congress, only 2.5 percent of the rules brought forth by the new Democrat majority on the Rules Committee have been open, while a staggering 97.5 percent have been restricted or closed.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the trend we see before us today with yet another closed rule denying Members an opportunity to try to improve legislation does not continue for much longer. However, I must comment that I am more disbelieving with each restrictive and closed rule brought to the floor.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule.

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

I appreciate my friend for yielding.

First of all, if there is a preprinting requirement, that means that once that deadline is done and debate starts on the floor, no one can come down and amend the rule. Therefore, it's a closed rule.

Secondly, I can't say for certain, but the exchange that we had down here, a very good exchange, may have brought forward some idea by a Member wanting to come down and at least discuss an amendment. We don't have that opportunity. That is simply the point that I am making. This is a closed rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule and the underlying bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, no one supports violent acts of crimes committed out of hatred toward a person based on personal characteristic whether that is ethnicity, gender, religion, weight, height, age, eye color, profession, socioeconomic background, or political beliefs. If someone commits a crime, they should be punished for that crime. Period.

Instead, today, the Democrat majority has chosen to end equality under the law and to bring legislation to the House floor that creates special categories of people. Specifically, this bill allows Federal assistance to be given to State and local law enforcement to investigate and prosecute felonies that are believed to be motivated by prejudice based on actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

This bill also makes certain crimes a felony in cases where the perpetrator was believed to be motivated by bias and there has been a history of such bias-motivated violence.

Separate treatment is afforded for crimes based on hate against protected classes of citizens under this bill, as opposed to crimes against victims that are not in a protected category. As we learned decades ago, separate is not equal.

The Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a bad bill and should not be brought to the floor, but especially under the closed process that does not allow for any changes or improvements to the underlying bill.

Eighteen thoughtful amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee yesterday, and sadly, not one of these amendments was allowed to be considered by the full House of Representatives. I am disappointed the Democrat majority again has missed an opportunity to live up to their commitment of allowing input under an open process.

Mr. Speaker, how many special categories of people should this bill create? Have all characteristics for which there has been a history of bias-motivated violence been included in this bill? Should more categories be added and should some be excluded from this bill?

Under this closed rule, these questions will not be answered today by Members of the House through the amendment process.

Yesterday, Mr. Forbes of Virginia offered an amendment to this bill that would expand the list of protected categories of individuals to include members of the Armed Forces. If you believe the government should afford special treatment to crimes committed against special groups of citizens, then why not our military men and women? Why aren't those who volunteer to protect our country's freedom not afforded this protected status?

Mr. Gohmert of Texas offered an amendment that would add law enforcement officers to the list. There have been several instances where gang members and would-be gang members have targeted and killed law enforcement officers because of their hatred towards them for choosing to go to work each day to protect our communities. Is committing a crime against law enforcement officers simply because their job is to uphold our laws a crime not deserving of special assistance to investigate and prosecute that crime?

Crimes have been committed against senior citizens, and an amendment was offered to include them under the hate crimes legislation, but that amendment, too, was not allowed under this closed rule today.

The question remains, if the Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act creates special protection, then whom should it create special protection for? Because this bill is being brought up under a closed rule, Members of the House and the people they represent will not have an opportunity to voice their opinion on this question through the amendment process.

Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this closed rule, which not only gags the minority party, but gags all Members of the House, who will be denied the right to offer improvements to this legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose the gag order rule and the underlying bill that creates special categories of citizens and ends equality under the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the Judiciary Committee, but more importantly, a former attorney general for the State of California.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule because it's a closed rule, which has been demonstrated with the observations of Mr. Lungren and Mr. Gohmert.

Mr. Speaker, if someone commits a crime, they should be punished. Period. This is a bill that ends equality under the law by authorizing $10 million in grants over 2 years to State and local law enforcement to combat hate crimes targeted to special categories of people. It is a bad bill. This rule is a bad bill, not allowing for improvement, so I ask Members to oppose the rule and 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. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California 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 National Science Foundation plays an important role in making sure that our Nation is a global leader in the fields of science and engineering. This Federal agency provides critical support for researchers, educators, and students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Specifically, Federal support allows American

scientists to pursue high-risk, high-return fields that increase our Nation's competitiveness and scientific knowledge, and it ensures we are able to attract the brightest minds to our colleges and universities.

One area in which the National Science Foundation is supporting U.S. leadership in the sciences is in the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory Program, or ``LIGO'' for short. The LIGO program, which operates an observatory in Central Washington in my district, is trying to detect for the first time the existence of gravitational waves, which have been sought by physicists around the world since they were theorized by Albert Einstein. Their discovery would lead to a greater understanding of the makeup of the universe and would help solidify our Nation's lead in the field of physics and astrophysics.

The President's fiscal year 2008 budget provides for the expansion of LIGO and nearly doubles funding available for the LIGO Hanford Observatory to allow for more advanced research. I am pleased that the National Science Foundation Authorization Act supports this proposed expansion.

The LIGO program is not only an important investment in our Nation's science capability, but it also has been an instrument of learning for local communities. The LIGO's Hanford Observatory was recently awarded one of the first ever Science Education Advocate Awards by the Washington State Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform, a partnership of public schools and science institutions. LIGO is an excellent example of the National Science Foundation's dedication to funding world-class research while also helping to grow students' interest in the sciences.

Mr. Speaker, if America is to continue to lead the world in science and the pursuit of knowledge, funding for the National Science Foundation is essential. The underlying legislation authorizes the National Science Foundation for 3 years at strong levels needed to maintain and strengthen research through the foundation.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am once again disappointed that the Democrat majority has once again missed an opportunity to provide consideration for the National Science Foundation Act under an open rule that would allow all Members of the House to come to the floor and offer an amendment during consideration of the bill. The National Science Foundation was last authorized in 2002, and at that time, the Republican majority allowed the bill to be considered under a truly open rule. I am disappointed that the Democrat majority has pledged a new era of openness but so far has not lived up to their commitment. Instead, it frankly has tried to change the definition of what an open rule is.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) 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.)

Madam Speaker, the Small Business Administration was originally created to assist small businesses which are vital sources of job creation and economic growth here in America, but are often disadvantaged when it comes to access to capital.

The Small Business Administration's two largest small business finance programs, the 7(a) loan guarantee program and the 504 loan program, have assisted thousands of small businesses every year that otherwise would not have attained a commercial loan for the purpose, amount and on the terms that small business borrowers need.

The Small Business Lending Improvement Act enhances and streamlines these finance programs and makes the 7(a) program more affordable and accessible to borrowers and lenders by providing the Small Business Administration with the authority to use funds to reduce fees on both lenders and borrowers. This bill encourages increased lender participation in the 7(a) program by reducing application burdens for borrowers and lenders in rural areas and expediting the loan consideration time.

This bill was favorably reported by the Committee on Small Business by a voice vote, and it enjoys strong bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, our Nation's small businesses are the engine that drives our economy. Small business represents 99.7 percent of all employers and have generated 60 to 80 percent of new jobs annually over the last decade. Clearly, we must act to help our Nation's small businesses continue to grow and create job opportunities.

While I support the underlying Small Business Lending Improvement Act, more must be done to help small businesses overcome the challenges they face. Congress must act quickly to continue tax incentives for small business expenses that spur job creation and grow the economy.

In the last Congress, I supported the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act, which extended through 2009 the enhanced section 179 small business expensing allowance. In 2007 the maximum allowance will be $112,000. But in 2010, this maximum amount will plummet to $25,000 without an extension of the current law.

I am disappointed that the Democrat majority has chosen not to provide small businesses more significant tax relief in a form that has an opportunity to become law. We cannot afford to halt our Nation's economic growth and job creation opportunities by letting small business tax relief policies expire and become part of the Democrats' proposed largest tax increase in American history.

Congress must also act to provide regulatory relief and make health care more affordable for small business employees and the self- employed.

Madam Speaker, because of the way health insurance is priced and regulated, small businesses usually pay more for similar coverage than larger corporations, and I think this is simply unfair. It is currently estimated that 60 percent of those without health insurance work for or depend on small employers who lack the ability to provide health benefits for their workers.

The high cost of health insurance prevents many small business owners from providing health insurance to their employees, and we must look for ways to make health care more affordable. One way is to expand Health Savings Accounts so that individuals can choose a health plan that best meets their needs. Health Savings Accounts allow individuals to make their own decisions about their health care, while building, at the same time, savings tax free to pay for future medical expenses.

Another way to make health insurance more affordable and accessible is to allow small businesses to join together to use the marketplace to buy health insurance as a group. This would provide small businesses with greater bargaining power and lower health plan costs that larger companies now often afford.

We must also provide fairness to self-employed individuals who purchase their own health insurance, but yet are treated differently under the U.S. Tax Code than those who receive health insurance benefits from their employer.

So I call on this new majority to bring forth legislation to the House floor that not only makes improvements to small business lending programs, as this bill does, but that provides real tax and regulatory relief to small businesses and makes health insurance more accessible.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that this House Resolution 330 is a structured rule. I am even more concerned that an amendment offered by my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, was not made in order by the Rules Committee. In fact, it was rejected by the Democrat majority on a party line vote.

Mr. Buyer's thoughtful amendment would authorize Federal contracting officials to treat small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans under the same rules as those applied to businesses in SBA's 8(a) program. Under House Resolution 330, Members are denied the opportunity to consider a full range of ideas on this floor to the Small Business Lending Improvement Act.

Accordingly, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and against House Resolution 330.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

Let me first talk about the issue of the structured rule and about Mr. Buyer's amendment, which I am going to call for a vote on the previous question so we can rectify what we didn't do in Rules last night, and that is simply this: The Rules Committee exists to make rules for debate on the floor of this House. We, on a regular basis, waive the rules for whatever. In fact, we are going to have the supplemental budget on the floor, and line 1 of that supplemental rule talks about waiving rules.

So the point is this: If we had had an open rule, as I suggested last night, Mr. Buyer could have offered his amendment.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my friend has any more requests for time. If he is prepared to yield back, I will make my closing statement and then yield back.

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

Let me respond. I appreciate at least the short time that the gentleman yielded to me. I wish I could have made my point, but I will finish making it here.

And that is if we had had an open rule, Mr. Buyer could have come to the floor and attempted to offer his amendment. Somebody would have probably raised the germaneness issue under a point of order, and I have all the confidence in the world that the Speaker would have ruled it out of order because that is what the rules are.

But now, because we have established a policy here of going through structured rules, we want to give every Member in this body an opportunity to see if we should have this amendment considered that allows for disabled veterans who have businesses to be treated as others would under that section of the SBA Act.

The second point I want to make in response to my friend's talking about tax relief, he talked about this majority's attempt, and I think he used the word ``attempt,'' or intention to address the AMT. I agree it needs to be addressed. There is a huge cost, as the gentleman knows; so we, in the past Congresses, have addressed it. But the tax relief issues that I was talking about in my remarks are already in place. They are already in place. They have been acted on. They were voted on, and the American people have enjoyed the tax relief. And they are going to go away if the majority follows at least the proposed budget that was passed by this body. It would result in the largest tax increase in American history, not only in the one that I cited but in others.

So with that, the last thing I would like to mention to my friend, because he talked about veterans funding, we not only dealt with and resolved the concurrent receipt issue, but in the last 6 years, veterans funding has increased by 50 percent. We all know that it is important that veterans get their due care because of what they have given us and our freedoms. So I just want to set the record straight that in the last 5 years, there has been a great deal of increase.

So we will be asking to vote, Madam Speaker, on the previous question. I will be asking for a ``no'' vote so that I can amend this rule to allow the House to consider an amendment offered by Mr. Buyer and provide the appropriate waivers. As I stated before, the Buyer amendment would authorize Federal contracting officials to treat small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans under the same contracting rules as those applied to businesses in the 8(a) program.

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the Rules Committee met yesterday, and they rejected, on a party-line vote, making it in order.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material into the Record immediately 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.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) 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, yesterday the Rules Committee met and granted a structured rule for consideration of the bill 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act. Only two amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee and both were offered by the underlying bill's lead sponsor and the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, Mr. Gordon.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed the Democrat majority rejected, on a party-line vote, an open rule for consideration of this measure, thus denying Members of the House of Representatives the opportunity to come to the floor and offer his or her amendments to this bill. And I frankly view this as another opportunity of the promises made by the new majority that were wasted with this bill.

However, the underlying bill mirrors the Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act, which was approved by the House Science Committee unanimously in the last Congress. The underlying legislation aims to increase K-12 science, technology, engineering and mathematics or ``STEM'' teachers annually by 10,000. Specifically, the bill authorizes competitive awards through the National Science Foundation to institutions of higher education to improve the training of STEM teachers and provide scholarships to students in STEM fields who commit to teaching after graduation.

I applaud the Science and Technology Committee for working in a bipartisan manner to help address the need for America to be more globally competitive in math, science, technology and engineering fields by focusing on increasing the number of quality math and science teachers in our Nation's classrooms. Our students and educators certainly stand to benefit from this bipartisan bill which I support.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman stated that in his mind this is an open rule. An open rule historically in this body has been where the committee of jurisdiction marks up the bill, takes it to the committee, and then the Rules Committee, with no restrictions, allows Members that are not on that committee to come down if they wish and submit their thoughts or improvements to the bill.

The bill we are about to vote on is a structured rule. Only two amendments were offered. Actually three, and one was withdrawn. Two amendments were made in order. Those amendments were sponsored by the chairman of the committee that has primary jurisdiction on this and the sponsor of the bill, to which it has strong bipartisan support because, as I mentioned in my remarks, this mirrors a bill passed out of the Science Committee last year.

This bill very easily could have been amended in the committee by the chairman, because he is the one who wanted to have the amendments, and it could have been on the Suspension Calendar. It would have passed with strong bipartisan support.

So with due respect to my friend from Vermont, this is not an open rule. This is a structured rule where Members are denied the opportunity if they wish to come to the floor of the House and offer amendments or improvements to this bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

I will simply say that a requirement of an open rule is not necessarily to have amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. The committee of jurisdiction is the one that marks it up and they take a lot of give-and-take within the committee. That is how we break this down, we break this whole cumbersome process down so committees can work in specific ways.

It is after that process, when it goes to the floor, that Members should have an opportunity to submit whatever they wish. And there is no requirement, never has there been a requirement on something like that where they have to go to the Rules Committee and essentially ask permission to offer an amendment on the floor.

So with this rule, contrary to the promises your party made going into the election, this is a closed process. Only two amendments are made in order. So Members are denied an opportunity to offer their thoughts on the floor.

Madam Speaker, we have had a discussion on the structure of this rule, and I just want to ask this question of my friend from Vermont, and I will be more than happy to yield to him.

This bill will be debated on the floor later on this afternoon. Is it possible under this rule for any Member, Democratic or Republican Member, to come down and offer an amendment on this bill?

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Thank you for your honest response on that.

Madam Speaker, I make the point that this, therefore, is not an open rule as was presented by my friend in his remarks. This is a structured rule, and what has happened is very simply that Members not on the committee are not given the opportunity to try to improve this bill. With that, I oppose the rule.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, 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 investing in areas of basic research and science today.

The underlying bill, H.R. 363, reaffirms our Federal commitment to increase America's global competitiveness in the areas of science, technology, research and innovation by supporting America's future scientific leaders.

The central Washington area that I represent is home to the Pacific Northwest National Lab in Richland, a state-of-the-art research facility. The PNNL hosts a diverse staff of outstanding scientists, engineers and support professionals. Many of these individuals in the past have received the highest levels of recognition for outstanding achievements and discoveries in their field.

At this lab, researchers use their expertise in the fields of environmental, radiological, biological and computational sciences to make important contributions to the scientific advancement of our Nation. The development of fuel cell technologies, biomass systems and radiation portal monitors are just a few of the areas where lab researchers are leading efforts to solve our national security and energy security challenges.

I am pleased that this legislation includes efforts to help encourage collaborations between scientists and national labs. Specifically, this legislation allows the National Science Foundation grants to be used in collaboration with our national labs, which means more researchers at our labs will be eligible for Federal support.

Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support, and this rule makes in order all amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules. However, Madam Speaker, I question the need once again for a structured rule when an open rule could have been granted for consideration of this bill.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I appreciate his acknowledgment that this is a structured rule and, therefore, Members cannot come down to the floor and ask for amendments to be made in order.

But I just want to make this point, and we talk about it a lot in the Rules Committee. A lot of these bills have strong bipartisan support, and, yes, there may or may not be Members that are clamoring for amendments. But it would just seem to me to keep the process in a way where all Members, if they desire, should have an opportunity to come down because maybe something was said in debate, maybe a point that was made that was overlooked, to at least have the opportunity to change. When bills have strong bipartisan support, that is probably the best time to have an open rule.

I respectfully tell my friend that there has been a change in definition of what open rules are. We could probably discuss that further because you have not had the open rules that we have had based on everybody having an opportunity.

I would just simply say that bills like this, if you are going to have them on the floor under the regular order of a rule, then it should be an open rule. Otherwise, it seems to me that it should be on a Suspension Calendar, like we pass so many pieces of our legislation.

That is just simply the point I am making. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from California if he has any more requests for time.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say this is a very good bill. It's a bill that has been worked on in the past Congress, and, obviously, in this Congress. It has strong bipartisan support, and all of the points that my friend from New York made in his previous remarks, I would like to associate myself with them. We need that.

It just seems to me that during their whole process, when you have strong bipartisan support, under the rules of the House, all Members ought to have an opportunity to have some say in legislation as important as this that comes to the floor of the House, and not just those members within the committee of jurisdiction.

I am simply pointing that out. It is a promise that was made by the new majority in the last election. I will withhold judgment, obviously, until after this first session is over to see if, in fact, those promises were kept. But as we go along here, seeing structured rules on bills that could very well be on a Suspension Calendar, I just think it's another opportunity missed.

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

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, in the 107th, 108th, and the 109th Congresses, the House considered and passed legislation to provide for conservation and development of water and related resources, and to authorize the construction of various projects in order to improve rivers and harbors in the United States.

Unfortunately, differences could not be resolved with the other body, and these bipartisan bills, therefore, did not become law. The legislation before us today mirrors legislation that was approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the House in the last Congress, and I am confident it will enjoy large bipartisan support today.

Mr. Speaker, 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 my area in the Pacific Northwest. Our region's major river, the Columbia River and its tributaries, 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 transportation 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 careful attention. The success of farmers and manufacturers throughout the Pacific Northwest depend on these ports being navigable and appropriately maintained.

Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions in the Water Resources Development Act that are important to individuals and communities that I represent in central Washington, and I would like to highlight those provisions.

Like the WRDA bill passed by the House in the last Congress, I am particularly pleased that the committee has included language in the manager's amendment to permit Corps of Engineer employees working at dams in the Pacific Northwest to participate in wage surveys that are conducted to determine their rate of pay. This important provision would 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 is a matter of fair and equal treatment, and I appreciate the committee agreeing with my request on this matter.

This bill also includes language that would allow the Corps to officially give credit to the Port of Sunnyside 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 river habitat in the Yakima River, and provide for greater economic growth in the local community. This provision ensures that the Port of Sunnyside gets proper credit for funds it invested 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 elimination of these flowage easements will allow beneficial uses of this prime riverfront property to move forward for the betterment of Pasco and the Tri-Cities.

Mr. Speaker, we must keep our commitment to sustain and enhance our Nation's water resource infrastructure, and that requires a regular review and updating of congressional direction to the Corps of Engineers to ensure that existing projects are maintained and that new needs are met.

I am hopeful that this necessary legislation will soon become law.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would just yield to my friend from California for an explanation on this.

So it takes that provision that violates the PAYGO from the bill?

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize one of the true leaders of the national science community, Dr. Leonard K. Peters. Dr. Peters came to Washington state in 2003 to assume the role of Director of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. During his tenure, the Lab oversaw an impressive growth in business and Len led the world-class PNNL staff to enhance relationships with research universities in the Pacific Northwest. Len has a long history of establishing successful public-private relationships in the science and education sectors.

Dr. Peters came to PNNL from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University where he served as Vice Provost for Research and managed Virginia Tech's ambitious research portfolio with diverse projects ranging from biotechnology to transportation materials. Prior to his time at Virginia Tech, Dr. Peters spent almost twenty years at the University of Kentucky where he served as a professor and eventually as acting Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies. Dr. Peters is a distinguished manager and educator and an accomplished researcher in atmospheric chemistry.

As Dr. Peters assumes a new role at Battelle, he will continue to lead and serve in the Tri-Cities area through community outreach programs. He is already actively involved in the region's educational community through his service on the Advisory Board for Washington State University's College of Engineering and Architecture, and the Board of Directors for Heritage University. Locally Dr. Peters chairs the Tri-City Industrial Development Council and serves on the boards of Kadlec Medical Center, the United Way of Benton and Franklin Counties, and Junior Achievement of

the Greater Tri-Cities. Dr. Peters is a committed leader who shares his tremendous experience and talent with the Washington state community.

I want to recognize Dr. Len Peters for his leadership and vision during the past 3\1/2\ years at PNNL. On behalf of the people of Washington, I wish him all the best in his new position and say thank you for his continued service to our State.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding.

Madam Speaker, there are two ways to balance a 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 of money coming in.

Madam Speaker, the Democrats have flat-out rejected option number one of spending less and declared their allegiance to option number two of raising taxes; and they have done both with a fervor that our country has never seen before.

The Democrat 5-year budget plan would spend more money each and every year and at a rate faster than the inflation rate. This means that each year the size of the Federal Government will grow bigger and more rapidly than the American economy. To pay for the record levels of spending in their budget, the Democrats plan to raise taxes on the American people more than at any other time in our country's history. That is right, raising spending to record levels and to pay for it with the largest tax increase in American history.

This budget does not extend tax relief from the marriage tax penalty. It doesn't extend the $1,000 child tax credit that many young families use. It doesn't end the death tax. It doesn't fix the alternative minimum tax for middle-class families. It doesn't protect the lowest tax rate, and would again impose taxes on lower income Americans who right now pay no taxes, thanks to the 2001 tax relief law passed by the Republican Congress.

This tax relief should not be repealed or allowed to expire to pay for more government spending. This tax relief that was passed in 2001 and 2003 should remain permanent for the American people.

Madam Speaker, on important priorities for my State, like the extention of the State and local sales tax deduction from the Federal tax and county payments for rural schools, the Democrat budget falls short. It offers only promises, but no real action. The Republican plan, on the other hand, sets

aside real dollars to extend the State and local sales tax deduction for another year. So I encourage all Members who believe in sales tax fairness to think carefully about this when casting their vote.

On the issue of payment to rural schools in counties with Federal forests, this budget allows an extension, but it takes no real steps to make it happen. As I have said before on this issue, I am disappointed that the Democratic leadership denied the opportunity to attach an extension of this legislation to another bill, a bill that has, in fact, been signed into law.

Madam Speaker, the Republican plan I will be supporting holds the line on spending, sets priorities and allows taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned money and invest it as they see fit, not how the Federal Government sees fit.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the budget resolution offered by the Democrat majority and support the substitute offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes; and, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform routinely risk their lives to protect ours. Along with their families, they make many sacrifices in service to America. There is no question that they deserve the very best care that our Nation can provide.

The situation at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center was unacceptable to all Americans, and I am encouraged that immediate steps have been taken to address the problems there. But it is just as important to take action to prevent similar problems from happening at any of our military health facilities.

Under Republican leadership, Mr. Speaker, recent Congresses have increased spending per veteran, expanded the concurrent receipt, written budgets that nearly doubled funding for veterans health care, and enhanced benefits for those returning from the war on terror.

Now, Congress is taking another step forward, and a proper step forward, in improving services for both our active military and our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill before us today makes commonsense improvements to ensure that our military men and women have access to the care that they have earned and to help maintain excellence throughout our military health system.

For example, this legislation creates a new toll-free hotline for reporting deficiencies at military health care facilities, calls for a study to identify infrastructure needs, and authorizes funding to support wounded warriors and their families. It assigns a medical case manager and a patient advocate to each servicemember receiving outpatient care and makes sure that these professionals are properly trained.

The process currently used to determine if a soldier can return to active duty is improved so that wounded servicemembers are afforded an opportunity to have input into the decision on whether they should retire from the service. Provisions are included to provide those separating or retiring from service with a seamless transition into the VA system, and the number of doctors at VA hospital facilities is increased.

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to talk about military and VA health care systems without mentioning the unique challenges faced by veterans in rural areas. My district in central Washington has one of the highest concentrations of rural veterans in the Northwest. Although I am working with the VA to get a new outpatient clinic up and running in the northern part of my district, access to health care remains an issue of concern for me and my constituents who all too often are forced to drive hours and sometimes wait months to even get the most basic care.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly disappointed that an amendment offered by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico was rejected last night in the Rules Committee and will not be allowed to be considered on the floor today. We are missing an opportunity to make a good bill even better by improving care for our rural veterans. The Pearce amendment is based on a bill that I have cosponsored that would enable the VA to partner with existing hospitals and local communities on a case-by-case basis so that veterans in many rural areas can be cared for closer to home. This to me, Mr. Speaker, is a commonsense approach to get top-notch care to veterans without delay. I am at a loss to understand why anyone would oppose this improvement to caring for our veterans.

Similarly, Mr. Moran of Kansas had an amendment that I also support; and,

unfortunately, it, too, was rejected by Democrats on the Rules Committee.

Our support for improving veterans health care should not be a partisan issue. I am pleased that both Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services Committee have made the underlying bill, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act, a priority and that the committee approved it by unanimous vote.

So, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill that this rule makes in order is a good bill. It passed the Armed Services Committee unanimously. It is something that is needed now that we need are engaged in this war on terror. Bills like this, in my view, deserve an open rule, so that you can give the opportunity for Members on both sides of the aisle to try to improve this good product and make it better. I cited two examples for the Rules Committee to not make in order two bills that dealt specifically with our veterans in rural areas.

While I support the underlying bill, I am opposed to the rule, because I think the rule could have allowed more amendments to have been in order or, for that matter, have made this an open rule. I think that ought to be the standard when we have strong bipartisan support for legislation.

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