Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, since the war on terror began, the Rules Committee has granted an open rule for every wartime supplemental spending bill brought to the floor, thus giving every Member an opportunity to offer an amendment and have their say on those supplemental bills.

In the Rules Committee last night, we heard passionate testimony from several Members on both sides of the aisle. Some Members spoke about the need to continuing funding our troops to complete our mission, while others offered hard deadlines for withdrawal, regardless of consequence.

In the end, over 50 amendments were offered to the Rules Committee to be made in order for consideration on the House floor today. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, not one single amendment, let me repeat that, not one of the 50 amendments will be allowed to be considered by the full House. And, Mr. Speaker, I am truly disappointed with that.

The bill we have before us today contains restrictions on funding and conditions on what our troops are able to do that are simply, to me, unacceptable. We have military leaders for a reason. Making 435 Members of Congress commanders in the field is a formula for failure, which I am deeply concerned will have a long-term consequence on our security here at home.

By placing restrictions on funds, hamstringing our military and calling for an arbitrary withdrawal, this bill will jeopardize the ability of our troops to do their jobs to defend America.

A wartime spending bill, Mr. Speaker, should have, above all else, to provide the support that our men and women in uniform need to accomplish their mission. By placing conditions on funding, this bill fails to do that. Conditions on funding make it impossible for our military leaders and our troops on the ground to respond to ever- changing conditions on the battlefield.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill has more than just military funding. And I am disappointed now that it is only now, in an effort to attract votes for a bad bill that we know will never be signed into law, the Democrat leadership has decided to include in this bill an extension of rural county payments.

I tried earlier this year to attach an extension to another bill. That bill became law. I also tried to have a long-term extension brought up on a vote, but the Democrat leadership said no, time and time again. Allowing the extension to come to the floor only on a bill that we know will be vetoed amounts to nothing more than false promises.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight, along with my colleagues from Washington State, to pay homage to our friend and colleague who passed away last Thursday, Jack Metcalf.

Jack Metcalf represented the Second District of Washington from 1995 to 2001, and I have known Jack personally since 1968. I first met Jack when he first ran for the U.S. Senate. I was contacted by some people, and they said that he was coming into town and asked if I would meet with him, which I did, he ended up spending the night at my house and slept on the couch.

I only say that from background because that was typical of Jack. He was totally unpretentious. In fact, his history, electoral history, as a representative of northwest Washington goes back for many years. He first ran for office in 1958, unsuccessfully, I might add. Two years later he ran and was elected to the State legislature and served there for two terms and left. Then he got elected as State senator and served for 8 more years as a State senator, and left to run for the U.S. Senate again, and got beat and then came back and served as a State senator for 12 more years. He left that time to run again unsuccessfully for the U.S. House. But he was successful when he ran in 1994.

I point that out because that was four times that he ran for office in an endeavor to serve his constituents of northwest Washington. And it never bothered him, at least he never said it to me, that he was unsuccessful in the past. In fact, after he had lost in 1992 and was contemplating running in 1994, he was approached by the then Republican Central Committee chairman and suggested that maybe Jack ought not run because he was 68. And Jack replied to him, ``Well, I think I can win.'' And I can just hear Jack say that because that was so typical of him. He was totally unpretentious.

So I am here simply to say that he was a friend for many, many years. He was somebody that served his constituents well, and he was somebody, I think, that was really very, very true to his beliefs. And I think that is an asset that a lot of people probably don't have, but certainly Jack did. And I am very, very proud to have called him a friend for all these years.

And I can say that our thoughts and prayers are with Norma and his family, and he will be greatly missed.

With that I would like to yield to the individual that succeeded him in the Second District, my friend from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Madam Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues that last Thursday, one of our former colleagues, Jack Metcalf, who represented the Second District in Washington State, passed away.

So, Madam Speaker, I would ask if we could have a moment of silence in his remembrance.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I also want to congratulate the gentleman from California on the managing of his first rule in his capacity on the Rules Committee.

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, when most people think of the State of Washington, they imagine a cloudy day with a good chance of rain. However, much of the eastern part of Washington that I represent is very dry and very arid. In fact, my hometown of Pasco averages only 8 inches of rain a year, which is even less than the Central Valley, where my friend from California resides. This part of the State is also noted for its irrigated agriculture, which is the foundation of our rural communities.

Water is a valuable and limited resource that is critical for farmers and our agricultural economy. Two areas of my district in particular know the value and importance of water: the Yakima River Basin and the Odessa Subaquifer of the Columbia Basin. The Bureau of Reclamation is examining both areas for potential additional water storage, and I hope this Congress will continue past commitments to finding solutions that protect the farmers and the communities in these areas.

I also recognize the need to develop alternative sources of usable water for drinking and for agriculture purposes. By exploring innovative approaches such as membrane-filtering technologies and aquifer storage and retrieval, we can ensure that kitchen faucets and irrigation lines won't run dry in the future. Fresh water is a scarce and valuable resource and certainly one that we cannot afford to lose.

The underlying legislation continues a pilot program under the Clean Water Act that provides grants to encourage water reclamation and reuse. The bill would increase authorized funding for this program by $50 million without any fiscal-year limitation. However, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that this program has never been funded. Therefore, the real question of whether this program warrants Federal funding will be left up to the Appropriations Committee and the subcommittee in charge of water spending to decide.

So I urge my colleagues to support this modified open rule, and I hope that we can continue this openness in future legislation, including the supplemental spending bill, the budget resolution, and the Water Quality Financing Act that is expected to be on the floor later this week.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from San Dimas for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Resolution 219. I am disappointed that a bipartisan amendment that I offered, along with the chairman of the Ethics Committee, Chairwoman Tubbs Jones of Ohio, to the Rules Committee was not made in order under this closed rule.

The amendment that we offered would simply set the funding levels for the Ethics Committee at the level that was requested by Chairwoman Tubbs Jones and by me, the amount that we jointly determined was necessary to effectively carry out the Ethics Committee's responsibilities.

Regrettably, the budget we requested was not provided by the House Administration Committee. Yesterday, the Rules Committee refused to allow the House to vote on whether the Ethics Committee will have the resources it needs to fully fund its responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Committee is responsible for two primary tasks: one, educating, informing and advising members and staff about their ethical responsibilities pursuant to the House rules; and, two, enforcing those rules firmly and fairly without regard to friendship, favor, or political party.

Two years ago in a bipartisan fashion, I requested a substantial increase in funding to better fulfill these responsibilities, and I was pleased that 2 years ago the House Administration Committee supported and approved the full funding that was requested. However, as the Speaker and Members know, the 110th Congress passed significant changes to the House rules that we are living under in this Congress. Those rules require, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat, require that our committee take on additional responsibilities that we haven't had in the past in areas of gift, private travel, mandatory ethics training, and public disclosure.

Our budget request this year, $6.11 million, and it is the lowest of any standing committee in the House, would provide the additional staff to improve the quality of advice, authorize detailees from the Government Accountability Office to help process public disclosure office, increase ethics training for Members and staff throughout the country, and enhance the communication of the new ethics rules.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the need to live under a tight budget. Yet the budget requested by the Ethics Committee for this Congress is not arbitrary. It is the amount of funds needed to do the work that we are asked to do by a vote of the House. Limiting the Ethics Committee budget limits the Ethics Committee's ability to do its job. I do regret that this matter has reached the House floor, and I know that the chairwoman and I seek simply to have the resources we need to serve Members of this House and to uphold the integrity of this institution.

I am committed to working hand in hand with the chairwoman, and I know that she is sincerely dedicated to carrying out the committee's responsibilities. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I must ask my colleagues to join me in voting against the rule and against the previous question so that the amendment providing the Ethics Committee the necessary funding can be considered by the full House.

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, most Americans, including some Members of Congress, had never heard of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, that is, until the proposed purchase of commercial operations of six U.S. ports by the Dubai Ports World, a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates.

After reviewing the way in which the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States operates, it became clear that we must revamp the process by which foreign investments are examined for any effect that they may have on national security. The House acted and passed legislation last year, but, unfortunately, differences with the Senate were not resolved. That is why we are here again today to consider the bipartisan National Security FIRST Act, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my friends on the majority for bringing to the floor a bill that mirrors legislation championed in the last Congress by Republican whip Mr. Blunt, the National Security FIRST Act, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a unanimous vote last year of 424-0.

This underlying bill would for the first time establish in law the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which is currently a creation of a 1975 executive order. It would require the committee to increase its scrutiny of foreign acquisitions of U.S. assets whenever the transactions involve firms owned by foreign governments. The bill would also enhance congressional oversight of the committee by ensuring that leaders of both parties in Congress are briefed on investigative results before the committee completes its reviews of the takeover bids.

Following the tragedy of September 11, 2001, protecting our homeland must be a top priority for Congress. We face no greater challenge than protecting Americans from an enemy without borders that we all know is determined to destroy our Nation by any means necessary.

Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we act to revise and review the investigative process for foreign investment activities that may affect our national security. In the wake of the Dubai Ports World controversy, the current foreign investment process lacks confidence, predictability, and reliability, trademarks, I might say, of the U.S. securities markets.

The underlying bill, the National Security FIRST Act, restores confidence, predictability, and reliability while continuing to encourage foreign investments and preserve the over 5 million American jobs that foreign investment supports in the United States.

In my home State of Washington, Mr. Speaker, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies play a vital role in supporting jobs, employing over 83,000 Washingtonians. This bill has been carefully balanced so as not to discourage these important investments.

I urge my colleagues to support this open rule, and I hope this will not be the last open rule that we have providing for consideration of legislation impacting our national security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts for making his remarks. For a minute I thought he was making an argument about the debate we had last week regarding the Iraq resolution where we were asking for an open debate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Republican Conference chairman, Mr. Putnam of Florida.

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

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

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

I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for bringing this National Security FIRST Act under an open rule today.

As we move forward, Mr. Speaker, when we have important bills, and I am glad to hear my friend from Massachusetts say if there are controversial bills that come out of his committee, if he has anything to say, he will ask for an open process. I think that is good, and I commend him for that. I would hope as we move forward with bills regarding national security, health care and education, as they are brought to the Rules Committee and to the floor, I hope that all Members will be able to offer input and shape legislation through an open process.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

The gentleman, I remember, I am sure he was part of the majority that when the process was closed, there was a great deal of outrage. I would hope, I would hope that if there is a more closed process under a new majority that there would be similar outrage from the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I would just remind my friend that when that happened last year, which is acknowledged on our side, that there was a bit of outrage on your side. I am simply saying I would hope as we move forward and you ask for the same consideration as you asked last year, but say it was denied, I hope that there will be the same outrage on your side if you are denied an open process. That is all I am saying. I am looking prospective. That is all I am saying.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today I mourningly lost not only a colleague but a very close friend. We all know that Charlie's unwavering dedication to his constituents and to our Nation inspired us who had the privilege of serving with him. He was known and was well-documented as a principled lawmaker who was absolutely committed to his values and to his work in this people's House. He was never afraid to stand up for his convictions.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on a personal note, because Charlie and I were elected in 1994, and I see several of my colleagues here that are going to speak after me. My wife Claire and his wife Gloria became friends during the orientation. And while my wife doesn't come back here as often as Gloria was here with Charlie, whenever she came back we always made it a point as often as we could to get together with the Norwoods and have dinner. Charlie loved to try a lot of different venues: He was a steak man, and we ate steak. He liked Italian food, and we found several Italian places that we ate. He took me to a Korean restaurant. He liked Korean food after being in Asia. And we had great conversations. We talked about the patients' bill of rights; we disagreed. We talked about OSHA; we agreed. And so he and Gloria became good friends of Claire and me, and he even hosted my brother and I down at the Master's one year. My older brother and Charlie shared the same birth date, so they had a bond right off the bat.

If there is one legacy I think that Charlie will leave with all of us, it is the bulldoggedness and the determination with which he pursued legislation. But if there is one other legacy that will be left, it is the way he displayed the courage to fight this disease that he had. And I truly think, Mr. Speaker, that any lesser man would not have lasted as long as he did with the disease that he had.

Charlie will be very, very much missed, and our prayers go out to Gloria and the family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 157 and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is engaged in a Global War on Terror, a war that we did not seek, but a war that was brought to our shores on September 11, 2001. Today, we fight an enemy without borders that is determined to destroy our Nation by any means necessary. An al Qaeda leader said that they have the right to ``kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children, and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple thousands.''

The President of Iran has called a world without America and Israel ``possible and feasible.''

It is also undeniable that Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. But you don't have to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. The terrorists themselves have told us it is so. Al Qaeda's deputy leader has repeatedly said that Afghanistan and Iraq are the ``two most crucial fields'' in the Islamists' war. In a letter he said that expelling Americans from Iraq is the first step in expanding the jihad wave.

If this, Mr. Speaker, is what the terrorists are telling us, why should we not believe them?

As much as I wish that our troops were home, I recognize that arbitrary pulling out of Iraq would provide a sanctuary for terrorists and have serious consequences for our U.S. security. A self-sustaining government there is critical to our security here.

I share the frustration of all Americans who had hoped that the Iraqis would be protecting and governing themselves by now, but that simply is not the reality. Previous strategies to stabilize Iraq have not succeeded and things cannot continue as they have been. In order to succeed, Iraqis must step up and take responsibility for their own security. And under the new strategy, Mr. Speaker, announced last month, they will be held more accountable in the future.

Some say this new strategy is wrong; yet they fail to say what is right. They

call for an arbitrary pullout yet have not answered the question ``what then?'' They seek to cut off funding for our troops yet offer no plan for fighting terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, there is no easy answer. But simply declaring that we don't wish to be at war anymore does not make our enemies surrender. Withholding military personnel, failing to provide funds for our troops, or pulling out of Iraq with no plan to win the war on terror are simply not options. The consequence of failure is simply too dire. If we are defeated, Iraq will become a haven that our enemies will use to launch attacks against us. The Middle East will remain destabilized. Terrorists will fight us on our soil. And it will send a dangerous signal to countries like Iran, North Korea, and Syria, and embolden terrorists around the world.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission warned specifically against a precipitous withdrawal. They said: ``The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory.''

So our challenge, Mr. Speaker, is to insist on victory and not accept defeat. So, accordingly, I will not vote to deny our troops the support they need to protect themselves and America.

The nonbinding resolution before us today is contradictory on supporting the troops. On the first page it says we will continue to support the troops in Iraq, but on the next page it expresses opposition to sending reinforcements that our military says are needed to support our troops currently on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, how can you support the troops but not the mission?

Let me say again that I will not vote to deny our troops the support they need to protect themselves and America. What I would vote for, if given the opportunity, is a plan that would have the force of law, that would set benchmarks to measure progress, that would ensure that funding for our troops is not cut off, and that would keep Congress fully apprised so that they can make informed decisions.

In closing, I would just say that we must not forget the sacrifice that our troops are making. They are fighting the enemy abroad so that we will not have to fight them here. The bottom line is that this is about America and our security and a set of enemies who have said again and again that their goal is to destroy us.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And I want to thank you and I want to thank Mr. DeFazio, both, for your work on this not only in this Congress, but your yeomen's work at the end of the last Congress to try to get this problem resolved. And I apologize for coming down late. I wanted to participate more fully, but the Rules Committee is meeting, as we are speaking, on the Iraq issue. So I was up there and didn't have a chance to come down.

But let me make a couple of points here. This really is about keeping a commitment that was made by the Federal Government to the counties. And you just made the point there that States with counties in the western part of the United States have a lot of Federal ownership. I have two counties that I just want to talk about in my district where over 80 percent of their land is owned by the Federal Government. Now, by definition that means that 80 percent of the taxable land that the county commission would have is not subject to taxation.

The decision was made over 100 years ago for these national forestlands, which is principally in my area. I know you have some development lands in yours. But since they don't have taxation, they said okay. Deals were worked out many years ago that you can have the revenue from harvesting the timber, which worked out very, very well. So that is the Federal policy that was made. The Federal Government owns the land in these counties; so, therefore, they can't tax it. It is Federal policy. In the early 1990s, another Federal policy or interpretation, I should probably say, of a Federal policy has led to a decline in timber receipts, as you can see here by the chart.

When President Clinton, to his credit, tried to come up with a forest plan, the current level at that time of timber harvest was 4\1/2\ billion board-feet, and the promise was that you could at least harvest 1.1 billion, 25 percent of it. We are not even close to that. We are not even close to that because the interpretation of that law and the ensuing lawsuits have kept any activity in these multipurpose areas. And I should make this point: This is national forestland. National forests were created to be multipurpose, including commercial activity. If you want to lock it up and not have any activity at all, the way to do that is put it in a wilderness area. This is not wilderness. Some de facto policies, unfortunately, in the past have led to sometimes this being treated as wilderness areas but it is not. So as a result of this, as a result of the timber receipts going down, these counties who relied on the Federal receipts from timber because they couldn't tax land now are facing huge, huge cuts.

Chelan County in my district, one of the counties that has 80 percent ownership by the Federal Government, will have severe cuts in education, road maintenance, search and rescue, and this is a big tourist area up there, and the forestry education programs. Skamania County, a small county in the southern part of my district, loses 40 percent of its school budget. Forty percent of its school budget. And here we are and that 40 percent starts at the end of last year and they have to get through the end of the year.

So this is something that needs to be resolved, and I really appreciate your allowing me to come down to participate in this. Both of you have been really champions on getting this through. And, hopefully, we will be successful sooner rather than later, because these counties and these communities in our States simply can't wait.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues here this evening to urge this Congress to take action now and extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, commonly referred to as the county payments bill. This bill is an essential lifeline of support for rural communities throughout the country that are impacted by federal forest land ownership.

I thank my colleagues, Greg Walden and Peter DeFazio, for their steadfast efforts to address this problem.

What we are talking about here tonight is keeping a promise--a promise made to county governments a century ago in what was then still the early years of the National Forest system. County governments, of course, cannot tax the Federal Government. However, they still must provide for schools, roads, and emergency services. The Congress recognized this reality when it promised these communities that they would get a fair share of revenue produced from federal forest lands as compensation for the tax exempt status of federal forest lands. This revenue sharing, which Congress made permanent in 1908, served all parties well and was for many years an equitable solution to the problem.

Unfortunately, since the early 90s, special interest groups that oppose federal timber sales have used the Endangered Species Act to bring harvest activities in the Pacific Northwest to a standstill. The Clinton administration attempted to resolve the crisis by brokering the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994, which called for setting aside 80 percent of the federal forests in the Northwest and allowing for a modest level of continued harvest on some of what remained. This was supposed to produce a steady and reliable level of timber to help meet the growing U.S. demand for building materials and wood products.

However, even this compromise was not good enough for the radical environmentalists that have continuously used litigation to sharply limit federal harvest levels. What resulted is the closure of hundreds of mills throughout the Northwest--leaving thousands of people without family wage jobs and many counties with little or no compensation for the impact of federal land ownership. Today, we import more wood products than we ever did before, and the spotted owl--which was supposedly what all the litigation was about--isn't any closer to recovery as a result of our de facto zero harvest policy.

Fortunately, the Congress at least recognized the dramatic impact to local governments caused by the sharply declining Forest Service timber receipts. This is why we passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act in 2000. This law, which expired at the end of Fiscal Year 2006, enabled local governments to either remain with the traditional receipt sharing system or take a payment based on historical harvest levels. In addition, it authorized funding for local governments to work in cooperation with interested stakeholders to carry out special forest restoration projects. These payments made the difference for many county governments that would otherwise not be able to provide essential services.

Today, however, the future of these payments is in doubt. Despite the many efforts on both sides of the aisle, we were unable to secure an extension of this bill before the 109th Congress adjourned. I am proud of the fact that the House did at least identify and act upon a couple of legislative items last year that would have helped offset the cost of the reauthorization. However, the situation remains that we need to find a way to get the county payments extension through the Congress and on to the President. Time is quickly running out for these rural communities.

Let me give you examples of what will happen to two of my counties if we fail to act now.

Chelan County, which is almost 80 percent federally-owned land, will face severe cuts in education, road maintenance, search and rescue operations and many other county services. In addition, they would be forced to eliminate the Forestry Education Program, which takes ``at risk kids'' from several local rural school districts and involves them in hands on habitat restoration projects during the summer. This program is administered with the help of Washington State University and local employees of state and federal agencies and has been recognized by the National Association of County Officials.

In Skamania County, which is more than 80 percent tax exempt federal land, the local school districts will lose 40 percent of their current budget. That means the loss of dozens of teachers and support positions, the shuttering of school buildings, and dramatic cutbacks in classes and extracurricular offerings. The county government would be forced to cut more than half of their law enforcement personnel, road workers, and court employees. These people will likely have to leave the county to find alternate employment, taking their families with them and further eroding the county's economy.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a couple of examples of the kinds of the consequences to real communities if we fail to act. I again urge the leadership of the Congress to move the extension of the county payments bill on the next available legislative vehicle. Let's keep our promise to these local governments and reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act before it's too late.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 386 is a pretty straightforward bill. This legislation would authorize the transfer of about 9 acres of Federal property along with a few associated structures from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District in central Washington.

The irrigation district has fully repaid its obligations to the Federal Government related to these properties and now simply pays the bureau for their operation and maintenance. This conveyance would enable the irrigation district to make needed improvements, while allowing the bureau to focus its limited resources where they are more urgently needed.

This legislation is based on a formula agreement negotiated between the bureau and the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District in 2004. I commend the irrigation district and the staff of the bureau for working together at the local level to resolve the concerns of the parties involved.

Mr. Speaker, this same legislation passed unanimously during the previous Congress, but didn't get through during the final parts of the session. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill again today so that we may move it on to the other body.

I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young of the Natural Resources Committee and their staff for their assistance in expediting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and the chairwoman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as may I consume.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee held a 3-hour hearing and took testimony from the appropriations chairman Mr. Obey and Members that brought forth amendments to the committee in hopes of having them debated and considered on the floor here today.

Many good ideas were presented to the committee. These ideas ranged from considering a true, clean continuing resolution to restoring the lapse Federal Government safety net for 4,400 schools and 780 counties in rural America, from helping farmers with natural disaster relief, to increasing funding for local housing authorities, to taking unspent money from a rain forest education project in Iowa and, instead, spending those moneys to help millions, to help our veterans.

But unfortunately, after listening to the thoughtful testimony from Members on their ideas for improving the bill, the Rules Committee rejected every single one of them and approved this closed rule by an 8-4 vote.

So this House will spend just 1 hour, Mr. Speaker, considering this bill with no amendments even allowed to be debated and no substitute bill allowed to be offered by the minority.

So why the rush and the closed process? We are not asking for much. Give us a few minutes to sort out confusing parts of this resolution that have not passed the House previously, but have magically appeared in this resolution, like a rewriting of the formula for the distribution of section 8 housing funds. This new formula will affect hundreds of communities all across the Nation.

In my district in Washington State, multiple communities are slated to have their grants cut dramatically. In one city, city of Kennewick, the housing authority alone there will have their grant cut by $1 million. That is roughly one-third of their total budget. This rewritten formula was not approved by the House in previous spending bills for this year and clearly needs more input and discussion before becoming law. Unfortunately, we are denied the opportunity to discuss that.

One major issue that is neglected on this bill is a continuing safety net for our schools and counties in rural areas that have large amounts of Federal land and, therefore, have a very limited tax base. Recognizing the importance of this safety net, Mr. Walden of Oregon came to the Rules Committee and offered a bipartisan amendment with Mr. DeFazio of Oregon that would have provided a 1-year extension of funding so that these schools could keep their libraries open, keep the teachers at least through the end of the school year, and help counties with necessary road repairs. Let me be clear. Last year, over 4,400 schools received $400 million, and with this bill, they will receive exactly zero.

After convincing testimony by Mr. Walden, three Democrat members of the Rules Committee agreed to join me and Chairwoman Slaughter as cosponsors of H.R. 17 which would fix the problem for an additional 7 years. Less than an hour later, however, the Rules Committee voted against even considering a bipartisan amendment that would provide 1 hour of relief for this problem, saying that it is not the right vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, please try to explain to school children when their libraries close because of insufficient funding that the Congress wanted to act but chose not to because they did not feel this was the right vehicle.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, hundreds of unauthorized programs continue to be funded in this underlying resolution. We do not have a complete list of the unauthorized programs because the underlying measure is not a general appropriations bill and did not go through regular order. Therefore, there is no report which is required to list all unauthorized programs that are funded.

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak at length about the open process they would have when they were in charge. I want to believe them, I truly do. I have had discussions with my colleagues up in the Rules Committee every time we have met this year, but unfortunately, the actions simply do not match the promises that were made.

At the beginning of the 110th Congress, I heard my colleagues on the majority side say that after we wrap up our first 100 hours agenda, we will have an open process. It has now been nearly 4 weeks. The 100 hours are long past, and yet the House is yet to consider a bill under an open rule. Most have been closed out without any amendments.

I have to ask when, when will this House have the opportunity to debate and consider the bills? When will the minority be permitted to truly participate in this process? Because I can think of no better time than right now when we are considering the funding for our Nation's priorities and funding for almost the entire Federal Government.

Let us have a real debate on the $463 billion in this omnibus. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

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

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the conversation we had earlier that this is not in your jurisdiction, but we were given waivers in this bill for legislation that is also not under your jurisdiction, and the rewrite, if I am not mistaken, of the formula that I mentioned on formula 8.

Would the gentleman yield?

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment that was offered by our colleague from Oregon, while, yes, it refers to as a mandatory program was simply a 1- year program so that this problem could be fixed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 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 am pleased to yield 4\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my former colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Gingrey from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentleman wouldn't yield. I just wanted to ask one brief question. But I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the chairwoman, we have about four or five speakers left.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can insert Mr. Sessions and Mr. Walden's amendment that was rejected in the committee. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record at the appropriate place the amendment that I will be asking my Members to consider if we defeat the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished minority leader.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I will say right up front I intend to support title I and the rules package, and I take literally what the gentleman, my friend from Florida, talked about what we can expect from the Rules Committee when we restructure, hopefully next week, as to the timing and so forth of the business that we take up.

But I want to talk about one issue that is not addressed in the proposed changes for the 110th that is in the 109th package, and that is, the requirement to have recorded votes in the Rules Committee.

What the provision in the bill and the proposed changes say is that the Rules members now will comply as the Ethics Committee does. I was the chairman of the Ethics Committee in the last Congress and the ranking member in this Congress, and we have recorded votes in those committees, but we have the option of making them public or not.

Under the proposed rules packages, for the life of me, I cannot understand why that needs to be extended to the Rules Committee. It is obvious for the Committee on Official Standards, it is obvious there. But why it is in the Rules Committee is beyond what I can understand. Now, I do understand one of the reasons is that if there are errors, then you would certainly want to be able to correct those errors.

My first term was the 104th Congress, and that is when we made some major changes in voting. Since that time, there have been 1,304 recorded votes in the Rules Committee; the number of errors in the rules report in those 12 years is zero. And I think one of the reasons why is because this is a committee of only 13. There are nine Democrats and there are four Republicans in this Congress. It was the reverse in the last Congress. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that you could probably, on most of those votes, predict what the outcome is going to be.

So why, for the life of me, we would want to take the transparency of the Rules Committee away from public knowledge is absolutely beyond me. It just simply doesn't make any sense.

So I enthusiastically support adopting the rules of the 109th Congress. It would be my wish that that would be the rules for the 110th Congress, but we are going to debate that later and we will see what happens. But, again, why we want to take transparency out of votes in the Rules Committee, and I understand there will be new members on your side, why they won't want to stand the transparency for their constituency is beyond me.