Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I would add further compliments to the final rule that our distinguished chair is bringing to the House as the chair in the majority, and to thank him again for his leadership of the Rules Committee and his friendship as we have progressed along. Having learned the things that I have from him, I am sure now that I will be able to teach him a thing or two in the next majority.

Thank you very much, David, for your friendship.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to have to speak against this trade proposal today. I am from one of the most trade dependent states in the country and I have always supported the expansion of trade opportunities and fair trade agreements. I am well aware of how complex and interrelated the global economy is today and how important it is that we remain engaged with our trading partners to bring down trade barriers. I support Permanent Normal Trade Relations for Vietnam and many other provisions in this package.

However, I have a duty to speak out against this bill, because it proposes to continue unfair trade concessions to select Andean nations in exchange for absolutely nothing. I am speaking of the extension of the Andean Trade Preferences Act, which has been rolled into this package. ATPA is not a trade agreement--it is a one-sided proposition that writes off the interests of American farmers under the false premise that South American drug lords are going to give up lucrative cocaine production if they simply had the opportunity to export legitimate products duty free into the United States. It is fundamentally unfair for American farmers and has had dramatic repercussions in my district in Central Washington state.

One of the Peruvian products that have benefited most from the ATPA windfall is asparagus, which grows in the sandy coastal areas of Peru-- not the mountain highlands where coca is produced. Since the implementation of the Andean Trade Preferences Act in 1991, imports of fresh Peruvian asparagus have soared from 2,800 metric tons to well over 55,631 metric tons. Similarly, imports of frozen asparagus from Peru have increased more than twenty times. This flood of duty-free imports has been devastating for American asparagus growers in the major production areas of Washington, Michigan, and California. It has also decimated much of the domestic asparagus processing capacity. In fact, facing a flood of inexpensive Peruvian imports, many asparagus processors simply closed their U.S. operations and reopened down in Peru.

Perhaps if you are not from an asparagus production area in this country, you may think this trade-off is worth it if it results in less narcotics production. The unfortunate reality is that this policy has failed. According to the White House Office of National Drug Policy, coca cultivation in Peru has increased to 94,000 acres--the highest level in eight years. The International Trade Commission noted that any impact to narcotics trade from ATPA is ``small'' and ``indirect.'' Yet the impact to the American asparagus producer is the exact opposite. Nevertheless, here we are, asking American farmers to sacrifice their livelihoods for another six to twelve months under this bill to pursue a wholly unrelated anti-narcotics strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that we are once again putting the interests of a handful of large industrial asparagus exporters in Peru ahead of our own fanners in Washington, Michigan, and California. It is an unfair policy that sends the wrong message at a time when we need to revive momentum for expanding global trade opportunities. I must therefore oppose this flawed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that provides an expedited process for the States of Washington and Oregon and the four Columbia River treaty tribes to manage aggressive California sea lion predation of endangered salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River. This bill is the result of months of collaboration with my colleague from Washington, Mr. Baird, and I thank him and his staff for their diligent efforts in working with me to develop this legislation.

The Columbia River is the heart of our region, and runs right through my district in Central Washington state. This river is critical for power production, irrigation, transportation, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat. This river is renowned for its salmon, which are an important part of the regional economy and way of life, and of great cultural significance to the Native American people of the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, at this time, we have a number of salmon and steelhead runs that are listed as threatened and endangered under the Endangered Species Act in our region. Many of these are in the Columbia River and its tributaries.

Our region is working diligently to restore healthy salmon runs, and we have made great progress over the last 10 years. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars each year in direct spending in support of salmon recovery. I have long argued that we must take a balanced approach to salmon recovery that recognizes the many factors that influence their life cycle. This includes the so-called ``four Hs''-- hydropower, hatcheries, harvest, and habitat--as well as things like ocean conditions and the high level of predation by certain birds and marine mammals. This legislation is about addressing the latter problem.

We have witnessed dramatic increases in the number of California sea lions over the past few decades. In fact, their numbers have grown six- fold to nearly 300,000 coast wide. While these animals have always been present in and around the Columbia River, we have seen them appear in growing numbers in recent years--especially during the peak of the spring salmon run. A few years ago, just a few sea lions were witnessed in the tailrace below Bonneville dam, where the salmon tend to gather before entering the fish ladders. Now, it is becoming the norm to see nearly 100 of them. Recent estimates by the Army Corps of Engineers indicate that California sea lions are responsible for eating more than three percent of the run as observed at Bonneville dam. This does not include the numbers of salmon eaten elsewhere in the lower Columbia River by sea lions.

Despite efforts by federal, state, and tribal officials to discourage the sea lion predation through aggressive nonlethal hazing, the sea lions appear to becoming more brazen with each passing year. It is clear that lethal removal of some of the worst actors is necessary to deter this sea lion behavior and to help recoup more of our substantial investment in salmon recovery.

Similar conflicts between protected marine mammals and ESA-listed fish have occurred in the Northwest before. In fact, the Marine Mammal Protection Act was amended in 1994 to address the problem of California sea lions eating returning winter steelhead at the Ballard Locks in Seattle. The process established by that amendment allows states to apply to the Commerce Department for legal authority to remove marine mammals under certain conditions. However, in practice, the application process takes 3 to 5 years to come to a conclusion.

The Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act, which I am introducing today, would provide expedited authority for states and tribes to manage the sea lion problem while the states concurrently apply for longer-term authority through the established process. There are numerous protections in this proposal to ensure that only a limited number of sea lions are removed. In addition, the permit holders would have to determine that the sea lion in question has preyed upon salmon stocks and has not been responsive to nonlethal hazing methods. The proposal calls upon the Commerce Secretary to report to Congress on the need for amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act to address conflicts between protected marine mammals and fish species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act.

In addition to Mr. Baird, I am pleased to be joined today upon introduction by Mr. Walden and Mr. Dicks. This proposal is a measured, common-sense response to the very real problem of increasing California sea lion predation of threatened and endangered salmon, and I hope my colleagues will allow us the opportunity to move this legislation expeditiously before the end of the 109th Congress.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1045 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1045 provides that suspensions will be in order at any time through the legislative day of September 29, 2006. Further, it provides that the Speaker or his designee will consult with the minority leader or her designee on any suspension considered under the rule.

This is the last week before Congress will recess until November so that Members can return home and spend their time meeting and working with those that they represent. Currently, there are several necessary and noncontroversial bills that are waiting consideration by the House of Representatives. It is important that the House be able to consider these bills before adjourning.

The suspension authority provided in this resolution will ensure that Congress can complete some additional key work by allowing for consideration of a number of important bills through the legislative day of September 29, 2006.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, there have been several references today and in the past few days about the issue of the minimum wage. I think that we need to set the record straight as exactly what this House has done regarding that issue, because the issue has been around some time.

Before we went on our district work period in August, the week before we left at the end of July, this House did pass, did pass and sent over to the Senate, an increase in the minimum wage.

Yes, it was attached to other bills, or other issues. That is not anything that is unusual in this body. That goes on all of the time. But what were those other issues? Those other issues provided tax relief for certain Americans. One of that was sales tax deductibility, for example, for States that do not have an income tax. My State happens to be one of those. Broad support in both Houses of the Congress.

The other was the, not the elimination, but capping of the death tax. That has support in both Houses. It unfortunately does not have the required filibuster-proof support in the other body. But that was part of that tax bill.

There is also a provision for research and development tax credits to keep our economy moving. That has broad support in both Houses. That was part of that tax bill. And then there were some other provisions in that also.

Attached to that, yes, was the minimum wage. I voted for that. I have to say, Madam Speaker, I am not one that is generally in favor of the minimum wage. But I felt coupling that together

with these other important measures to keep our economy going, to take care of those taxpayers in States that do not enjoy broad parity with other States, I thought it was important.

So if the issue then is to pass a minimum wage, it seems to me the message ought to be sent to the other body, because that bill is still waiting over there. All they have to do in the final days of this session is to stop the filibuster and pass that bill over there, and we will have the minimum wage increase that we keep hearing over and over and over.

So, Madam Speaker, I just wanted to set the record straight that this House has acted on that, and I think in a very responsible way.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to touch on a couple of issues that were brought up here, and hopefully set the record straight as to what has happened.

There has been talk about Medicare. I just remind my colleagues that the Medicare legislation that had the prescription drug benefit was passed by a prior Congress. To be sure, it was put in place and implemented during this Congress, and that was done because we were really blazing new ground with that Medicare prescription drug reform and the Medicare reform in general. I might add, too, Madam Speaker, for 40 years when the other side controlled this body, there was no prescription drug benefits available at all for anybody on Medicare. So this was new ground, and we put into place, I think, some very innovative reforms that, frankly, have proven to have been very well accepted by people across the country.

I think the most important part of this Medicare reform was that we made it voluntary. It was not a mandatory program. To suggest that people once they turned 65 cannot make decisions, I think, is wholly underestimating senior citizens. In my district, for example, when the Medicare plan was fully put in place there were 30 plans to choose from in my district. Seniors had a number of choices. I had a forum where a number of seniors came up, asked questions and then made their decisions before the sign-up time. They will have another opportunity to sign up, again, of course in November.

While this program is only in place now for less than a year being implemented, by and large, across the country, it is being well accepted because it provides the coverage that was not available before, and I think that point needs to be emphasized.

I might add that when we reformed this program there was a lot of criticism about the cost of this program. Sure, anytime you have a Federal program, it is going to cost some money, but their substitute plan cost infinitely more than what our plan was that we put into place.

So I just wanted to set that record straight, and I think it is important.

Secondly, I want to talk a bit about border security and the overall war on terror. I just remind ourselves, earlier this month, we passed the 5-year time period when we were brutally attacked by terrorists on 9/11/2001, and let us remind ourselves, we have not been attacked in this country since that time. Other countries have faced international terrorism in London, in Spain, and in Indonesia comes to mind right off the top. Same people are behind this as international terrorist group.

So what we have done is to try to secure our country, and since we are involved in this war on terror, I think it

is clearly in our best interests to try to engage them on their turf. We have been successful thus far, but as President Bush has said, this is going to be a long, long process, but keep in mind, there is no question that the ultimate target in this international war on terrorism is our way of life.

In response to that, we have secured our border. There is absolutely no question about that. In some cases, it was passed with bipartisan support, and in some cases, it was not, but the record, Madam Speaker, I think needs to be said, and that is that we are doing things to secure our border and make America safe.

The fact that we have not been attacked I think is credit to those that do that work to secure us on the homeland security, on the border, the first responders. They have all responded. Our intelligence community is much, much more robust than it was before and that has added to our security.

So, Madam Speaker, there has been a lot that has been accomplished in this Congress, and I think that we can go into this break before the elections with a very high head.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support ensuring that only American citizens vote in our Nation's elections. The right to vote of all Americans is diminished if ineligible and illegal votes are cast. That is the goal and intent of this bill, which is why I vote to move this bill forward today.

There are provisions of the bill, however, that have me greatly concerned about the impact it would have on Washington state voters who are required to vote by mail. The bill would mandate that voters photocopy their driver's license and mail that copy in with their ballot. This places a heavier burden on mail voters than poll voters. It creates a higher hurdle for mail voters to get their vote counted. And it raises serious questions about personal privacy and the potential for identity theft. These requirements are not acceptable and must be addressed during any conference committee talks with the Senate.

Chairman Ehlers has given his assurance that the mail voting provisions will be addressed in a conference, and specifically that the views of Washington's Secretary of State will be heard. I appreciate this commitment and believe there are certainly far less burdensome ways to ensure only citizens are casting mail-in ballots.

Clearly, Washington and Oregon stand out among other states when it comes to voting by mail and federal law must respect differences among the fifty states.

Action needs to be taken to ensure only citizens are casting ballots in elections and that is why I vote to move this bill forward today, but I will oppose and vote against any final bill or conference report if my concerns on the mail voting requirements are not addressed.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 958 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, in the bill that we will be considering later on that has the minimum wage provisions as my friend from Texas was talking about, it also has some very important tax, what we call tax extenders bills, that would otherwise expire.

One of those extenders is something I know is very important to the citizens of Texas in that it allows sales tax deductibility for those States that do not have a State income tax. The Speaker pro tempore is one of those, my State is one of those, and my friend from Texas also has that.

So I would hope that while we have the minimum wage in the same bill as the sales tax, it seems to me to be a pretty attractive package.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I feel a great deal of respect for my friend that just spoke, and I want to go on record as saying that I am one of those that is not in favor of raising the minimum wage. I have never voted for that. And my State, by the way, has, if not the highest, one of the highest minimum wages in the country.

But I am going to vote for this bill. And I am going to vote for this bill not because I embrace the minimum wage, I am going to vote for this bill because it has the estate tax provision in there. I am going to vote for this bill because it has the sales tax deduction for Washington State and other States that don't have sales tax deductibility. And my expectation is, my expectation is that the other body will vote accordingly and pass the bill, therefore, we will have the minimum wage increase that my friend from Massachusetts talked about.

It seems to me it is the best of all worlds in the give and take of the legislative process as we near a recess.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Well, reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman told me that.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, if the gentleman is prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for consideration of two very important bills, bills that have been worked on extremely hard on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the rotunda. One of them is the pension reform bill that has been worked on by the respective committees for 5 or 6 years on a bipartisan basis. The bill that we will take up later on pension reform is the conference report. But because of the timing and some logistics, this is the best way to address this issue is to take the bill up and pass it so that the Senate can act on it next week.

The other bill is a minimum-wage increase bill. I don't know how many times this body, in the last several months, has had procedural motions regarding the minimum wage. So we are going to have a minimum-wage bill before us later on tonight. And with that bill, with the expectation that the other body will talk about it and will pass it favorably, will be something that this body has addressed several times.

The estate tax, or the death tax, has been addressed by this Congress on two occasions. The first occasion was to totally eliminate it. And it passed this body on a bipartisan basis. The second time was a cap that we will take up, very similar to what we will take up later on. It also passed on a bipartisan basis. So the issues that we are taking up and allowing to take up with this rule aren't new to this body.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for this same-day rule and to vote, later on, for the rule that will allow consideration of these two measures that I just talked about. They are important to our constituents; and the sooner we do it, the better off we will be.

And I must say too, Mr. Speaker, the expectation is that both of these measures that we will take up later on tonight will be passed by the other body next week and they will become law. And amongst that is the minimum-wage increase that my friends on the other side of the aisle have been talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 966 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 966 is a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5970. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 5970 in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

It also waives all points of order against the consideration of H.R. 5970 and provides one motion to recommit H.R. 5970.

House Resolution 966 also provides for the consideration of H.R. 4 under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4 in the House equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 4, and provides one motion to recommit.

This rule allows for consideration, Mr. Speaker, of two very important measures. The first deals with protecting the pensions of American workers. Mr. Speaker, the recent financial troubles and pension terminations of several large companies underscore the need for fundamental pension reform. The underlying bill is an agreement struck between the House and the Senate conferees on H.R. 2830, the Pension Security and Transparency Act.

The underlying bill will ensure that millions of hard-working Americans who rely on single and multi-employer pension benefits can continue to count on them. I would like to congratulate the majority leader, Mr. Boehner for his tireless efforts in bringing this conference report before the House today.

Mr. Boehner has worked on legislation to better protect the pension of workers for over 5 years now, and I commend him for his hard work on this issue. It is vital, Mr. Speaker, that we modernize current pension laws by strengthening worker's retirement security and reduce----

I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just tell my friend from North Dakota that that was the rule that we worked on. But there are three provisions. It was for the conference report, it was for the minimum wage bill, and it was for another bill. We are taking up the second two of those bills under that rule.

In other words, the first portion that was provided in the rule, while it is provided, is not applicable to what we are taking up tonight.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. Again, there was a conference report, my understanding was agreed by all but it was not signed. The gentleman is correct on that.

The underlying bill that we are taking up is that bill that was agreed by all parties on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. That is what this rule provides for.

Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we modernize the current pension laws by strengthening the workers' retirement and reducing the prospect of future multi-billion dollar tax bailouts.

In recent years, we have seen participants mistakenly believe that their pension plans are well funded only to be surprised when their plan is abruptly terminated. This legislation is intended to end that.

The underlying bill encourages workers to increase their personal savings by permanently extending several provisions to enhance pension participation and retirement savings that are set to expire in 2010.

Mr. Speaker, without a comprehensive fix to our outdated Federal pension laws, more companies will default on their work and pension plans, and more will stop pension plans for workers entirely. Now is the time for Congress to act on this important legislation.

The other measure, Mr. Speaker, that this rule will allow for will continue our ongoing commitment to American workers and taxpayers by providing economic security, enacting permanent estate tax relief, and extending numerous tax provisions that have passed the House in the past with bipartisan support.

This bill includes extending the sales tax deductibility, research and development credits and higher education incentives.

In 2001, Congress enacted, in a bipartisan fashion, to gradually phase out the death tax and fully eliminate it by 2010. However, if Congress does not extend this relief, in 2011, small business owners and family farmers will once again be assessed the full death tax up to a maximum 2001 rate of 55 percent.

The House of Representatives has acted twice in this the 109th Congress to enact a permanent solution to this form of double taxation, but unfortunately, our efforts have been blocked by the other body. Today, the House of Representatives will once again act to help families suffering the loss of a loved one from having to worry about losing the family farm or business in order to pay the Internal Revenue Service.

The expectation this time is that the other body will take up the bill and pass the bill. This legislation will provide estate and gift tax relief to America's small business owners and family farmers. Specifically, the bill would increase the exemption amount and index it for inflation, and would lower the amount of taxation on estates.

Mr. Speaker, last year, I, along with 271 other Members of Congress, supported a measure that would permanently and fully eliminate the death tax. While permanent elimination of this tax is what I will continue to work with my colleagues on, this measure is a step, in my view, in the right direction.

With permanent tax relief from this tax, many farmers and business owners will have a sense of security that they need to plan for the financial future of their business or their farm for their family.

Another important provision in the underlying bill is an extension of the State and local sales tax deduction from the Federal income tax. My State of Washington is one of nine States that do not have a State income tax.

For nearly 20 years, residents of these States have been unfairly disadvantaged by the IRS code which allows for Federal tax deductions for State income taxes, but not States that have sales tax deductions.

In 2004, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and I fought to restore fairness to residents of States without an income tax by restoring the sales and local sales tax deduction.

I would like to thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Thomas, for his efforts to include a State and local sales tax extension, which allow every taxpayer that chooses to itemize deductions in the States with no income tax the opportunity to continue deducting sales tax from his or her Federal tax bill.

By passing the underlying legislation, we will be restoring fairness for those who live, work, and raise families in those States. This will allow workers in Washington and others to keep more of their own money to spend and invest as they see fit.

While continuing to work to fight to make the State and local sales tax deduction permanent, this extension for 2 years will provide billions of dollars of relief to taxpayers in Washington and those other States, and I think it is a step in the right direction.

I am also pleased that this legislation creates a new 60 percent deduction for qualified timber capital gains through 2008. In my State of Washington, there are 8\1/2\ million acres of privately owned forests, and the forest products industry is the State's largest manufacturing sector. However, the current Tax Code puts our timber industry at a distinct disadvantage against international competition by subjecting corporate timber and forest product industries to a significantly higher income tax than their overseas competitors. Included in H.R. 5970 is a provision that lowers the timber tax and supports an industry that provides good jobs in many rural communities while strengthening its international competitiveness.

Another key provision of this bill extends the research and experimentation tax credit for 2 years. Technological innovation is vital to America's continued economic prosperity and research, and research and development is the lifeblood of innovation. However, research and development activities are expensive, and businesses generally cannot capture all of the returns on their investments. The Federal Government must continue to encourage private businesses to innovate by extending and enhancing tax incentives. The underlying bill does just that.

The underlying bill also extends several tax incentives to improve the affordability of higher education, including tax deferred education savings accounts and tax credits for post-secondary education. Specifically, it allows all taxpayers to deduct up to $4,000 of higher education expenses, which will help more students go to college.

Mr. Speaker, with about one month left before school starts, teachers will begin preparing and purchasing classroom supplies. Unless Congress acts, an important above-the-line tax deduction that expired this year will not be available to teachers when they go back to school. This bill will help teachers contain the costs of out-of-pocket expenses like books, supplies, and computer equipment while allowing them to deduct $250 from their Federal tax bill.

In an effort to encourage savings and stable retirement security, the underlying bill allows lower-income families that contribute to an individual retirement account and pension plans to continue receiving a Federal match in the form of an income tax credit for the first $2,000 of annual contributions. This encourages families to save and plan for their own retirement.

There is no question that allowing families to keep more of their hard-earned money spurs economic growth. Earlier this month, revised budget estimates projected that a recent surge in tax revenue will help shrink the Federal deficit more than previously expected. Not acting would raise taxes on millions of workers and families. We must continue the policy to grow our economy and keep our tax bills from rising.

The House of Representatives has previously passed these tax provisions on a bipartisan basis, and last December the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act, by a bipartisan vote of 294-132. I would encourage my colleagues to support House Resolution 966 and both underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Republican conference Chair, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

I continue to reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my friend from Tennessee, I would remind my friend from Oregon that the minimum wage in Washington State is, if not the highest, is the second highest in the country. It is $7.63.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

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

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of two very important bills. One bill is a pension reform bill that has been worked on for over 5 years on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. It is a very important piece of legislation and it needs to pass. The other bill is a bill that has two very important provisions: tax provisions dealing with the death tax and raising the minimum wage.

And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am curious by hearing the debate. I kept hearing on the other side of the aisle their talking about ``just give us an up-or-down vote.'' Well, I think we are sent here by our constituents to do more than vote. We are here to enact legislation. And the expectation, the expectation is that the second dealing with the tax provisions and the minimum wage will pass not only this body, but will pass the other body and become law.

I think that is much, much better service to our constituents rather than just saying give us a vote up or down and knowing that it may not pass both bodies. This will pass both bodies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 459) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 925 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 925 is a closed rule providing for 2 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It also provides that pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion.

Lastly, the resolution provides that during consideration of the bill, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker in consonance with section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 925 provides for the consideration of H.R. 5684, a bill to implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement, in accordance with trade measures negotiated under the Trade Promotion Authority. Under these procedures, once the administration formally submits the final legislative language to Congress, it may not be amended.

Former United States Trade Rep Rob Portman signed the United States- Oman Free Trade Agreement on January 19, 2006. Under the agreement, all consumer and industrial goods traded between the U.S. and Oman will immediately be duty free, and 87 percent of the U.S. agriculture tariff lines will gain immediate duty-free access with the remaining tariffs phased out over a 10-year period. It provides wide access and sets a strong precedent for opening up opportunities for services for U.S. firms, contains robust protections for U.S. intellectual property rights holders, and includes strong labor and environmental provisions.

Oman enacted broad labor reforms in 2003, Mr. Speaker, and has followed up with specific commitments to ensure that its laws provide strong protections for workers consistent with international standards. Oman enacted many of these reforms earlier this month and has pledged to enact the remaining reforms by this November. This agreement makes it clear that it is inappropriate for Oman to weaken or reduce domestic labor protections or environmental laws to encourage trade or investment and that this obligation is enforceable through specific dispute settlement procedures.

Mr. Speaker, the United States makes up only 4 percent of the world's population. Therefore, we must recognize that we have an opportunity to create and expand the marketplace for U.S. goods and services by reaching fair trade agreements with our international trading partners. This agreement will contribute to economic growth and trade between the U.S. and Oman; generate export opportunities for U.S. companies, farmers, and ranchers; help create jobs in both countries; and help American consumers save money while offering them greater choices.

My home State of Washington, for example, is one of the most trade- dependent States in the Nation, and our economy depends on fair trade. From agriculture to high tech to manufacturing industries, Washington State and our Nation are in a position to benefit by having more trading partners.

One area where trade with Oman shows great promise for America is in the area of commercial aircraft. Oman Air recently purchased Boeing 737 airplanes valued at $200 million at catalog prices. We want to continue to encourage these kinds of sales to Oman and in the broader Middle East, which, of course, creates new jobs here at home.

In addition to the new commercial opportunities it provides, this agreement will support many of the recent government, legal, and economic reforms in Oman, which are important to bringing stability to the Middle East region. In 2003 President Bush proposed completion of a Middle East Free Trade Area by 2013 as part of a plan to fight terrorism by supporting Middle East economic growth and democracy through trade.

The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act would be the fifth bilateral trade agreement reached between the United States and a Middle Eastern country. It is yet another step in the right direction toward integrating fair trade policies and economic reforms to support a more stable and prosperous Middle East. This agreement will send a strong signal to countries in that region about the benefits of closer economic and political ties to the United States.

The Committee on Ways and Means favorably reported H.R. 5684 last May. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 925 and the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to a couple of points that my friend from California made. Regarding the labor language in this trade agreement, it is essentially the same language that was in the Bahrain trade agreement that, of course, is in the same part geographically in the world as Oman.

I would just remind my colleagues that that language and that trade agreement were acceptable to my friend from California. She voted in favor of the Bahrain trade agreement, as did the gentleman from Maryland, whom she referenced.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to respond to the concerns that this agreement poses national security issues and concerns that a third- party tribunal would have ultimate say over our security issues.

The U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement, like previous trade agreements, treats Omani landside service providers and investors no less favorably than our own landside service suppliers. These landside activities include unloading vessels, marine cargo handling, and ship cleaning.

When an entity participates in these landside aspects of port activities, it does not control, manage or operate a U.S. port. That always remains the responsibility of the port authority.

Nothing in this agreement, Mr. Speaker, before us today prohibits the U.S. from reviewing foreign investment transactions in order to ensure our national security. More importantly, it expressly permits the U.S. to block a potential port acquisition by claiming national security interests.

As you see, Mr. Speaker, all of our trade agreements, including this one, contain an article called ``essential security,'' which is self- judging, meaning that it is up to an individual country

to determine whether a particular matter is necessary for the protection of its essential security interests. All the commitments that we undertake in trade agreements are subject to this provision.

Under this article, nothing in an agreement can prevent us from applying measures that we consider necessary for the protection of our essential security interests. Therefore, the ultimate decision on what is necessary to protect our essential services rests with the United States, not a third-party tribunal.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, history and precedent also indicate that no third-party dispute panel or tribunal has ever heard any arguments, much less issued a decision, related to the scope and application of any national security exception contained in a national trade or investment agreement.

So those issues, while they may be nice to talk about, really have no bearing on the trade agreements that we have had in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, who is probably one of the individuals in this body that works on trade issues more than anybody else.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the issue is on port security, then I would like to remind my colleagues of what I had said earlier, that in these trade agreements there are articles that speak to essential security, and these articles are self-judging, which means it is up to the individual country to make the determination as to what their security interests are.

There is nothing in this agreement that can prevent us from applying what we consider to be security issues.

But don't take my word for it. The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan organization, said, in addressing this issue and having an international tribunal judge this, that national security issues have never been subjected to review by trade panels. That is a very important distinction.

Further, the Congressional Research Service goes on to say: ``The U.S. should appear to be on solid legal grounds for asserting not only that the panel does not, the independent panel, does not have legal authority to determine the validity of such a matter, but also that the inconsistent measure is permitted and justified, given the broad self- judging language in the national security exemption.''

So clearly the argument that the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement will make our Nation less secure, in fact, has no basis in fact. There is no question, however, Mr. Speaker, that fair trade promotes economic development and political cooperation.

In fact, the 9/11 Commission specifically cited Middle Eastern free trade agreements and calls for action on a comprehensive U.S. strategy that President Bush has, I might add, engaged in that includes economic policies encouraging development, more open societies and opportunities for people to improve their lives.

Mr. Speaker, approving this agreement is a vital step towards our efforts against the war on Islamofascism and seeks to make our Nation more, not less, secure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of July 24 to grant a rule which would limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1956, the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2006.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by noon on Monday, July 24, 2006. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, which was filed with the House on Monday, July 17, 2006.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to ensure that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation that will enable the continued stocking of fish in certain alpine lakes in the North Cascades National Park Complex, which includes the North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

For many decades, volunteer groups--working with the State of Washington have stocked trout in a number of lakes in this area. This provides enhanced recreation and tourism opportunities in the North Cascades.

As you may know, the National Park Service as a general policy is moving away from artificially stocking fish. In this case, however, a 12-year university review indicates that the fish stocking program can be carried out in such a way as to not adversely affect the environment.

In order to protect this longstanding practice in the North Cascades, I am introducing legislation today that affirms that fish stocking can continue under certain conditions. While I believe the National Park Service already has the authority to do this under the act that established the park in 1968, the agency requires further clarification from Congress in order to proceed with a proposed management plan revision that would allow this practice to continue under the auspices of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

I am pleased to be joined today upon introduction of this bill by Rick Larsen, Norm Dicks, and Cathy McMorris. I look forward to working with my colleagues from Washington to make sure that our constituents can continue to enjoy the recreation opportunities created by fish stocking in the North Cascades.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of June 26 to grant a rule which would limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 4973, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2006.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 12 noon on Monday, June 26, 2006. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Financial Services.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 885 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 885 is a closed rule providing 1 hour of general debate in the House on H.R. 5638, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, in 2001, Congress acted in a bipartisan fashion to gradually phase out the death tax and eliminate it by 2010. However, if Congress does not act to extend this relief, in 2011 small business owners and family farmers will once again be assessed the full death tax up to the maximum 2001 rate of 55 percent.

The death tax is a form of double taxation, and frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is simply unfair.

The last thing families in central Washington and across the Nation should have to worry about when a loved one dies is losing a family farm or business in order to pay the Internal Revenue Service. But sadly, that is the situation many hard-working families could face if a permanent and workable solution is not agreed to.

H.R. 5638, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act, would provide estate and gift tax relief to America's small business owners and family farmers. Specifically, the bill would increase the exemption from $1 million to $5 million per person, indexed for inflation, and it would lower the amount of taxation on estates.

The bill would also provide tax relief for gifts given during a person's life. Currently, gifts given when a person is alive are taxed more than gifts given through a will or death. By reunifying estate, gift and generation-skipping transfer taxes, we give individuals greater flexibility to give gifts during their life rather than at death.

I am also pleased that this legislation creates a new 60 percent deduction for qualified timber capital gains through 2008. In my State of Washington, there are 8.5 million acres of privately owned forests, and the forest parks industry is the State's second largest manufacturing sector.

However, the current Tax Code puts our timber industry at a distinct disadvantage against international competition by subjecting corporate timber and forest product industries to a significantly higher income tax than their overseas competitors. Included in the underlying bill is a provision that lowers the timber tax and supports an industry that provides good jobs in many rural communities, while strengthening its international competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, last year I, along with 271 other Members of the House, supported a measure that would permanently and fully eliminate the death tax. While permanent elimination of this tax is what I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides to accomplish, this relief measure is a step in the right direction.

The Rules Committee reported House Resolution 885 by a voice vote last night. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthwhile just to put a little bit of the historical context on this issue because it has been around for some time.

In the 106th Congress, for example, in the year 2000, the House passed a bill to phase out the death tax in 10 years and permanently repeal it. When it passed the House, it got 279 votes, obviously bipartisan. Sixty-five Democrats voted for it. In the other body, in the Senate, it passed the Senate with 59 votes, obviously on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed by the President in the 106th Congress.

So, in the 107th Congress, in 2001, once again, the House passed the bill to permanently repeal the tax, phase it out over 10 years, and that bill garnered 274 votes, again a bipartisan vote out of the House.

Unfortunately, in the Senate, we were unable to get a full repeal and, instead, the death tax was phased out over 10 years, but would revert in 2011 to the 2001 rate. The expectation, of course, was that the Congress would deal with that before 2011 and fully repeal it.

In the 108th Congress, once again the House passed a bill to fully repeal the death tax, 264 votes out of the House, again on a bipartisan basis; and in the 109th Congress, this Congress, once again the House passed a full repeal, 272 votes, again on a bipartisan basis, with Democrats joining Republicans to repeal it.

The unfortunate thing is this leads us to where we are right now, and that is that the cloture motion failed in the Senate. It takes 60 votes in order to cut off debate in the Senate; and, unfortunately, the Senate only received 57 votes. So, therefore, that issue won't be taken up.

This is an effort, then, to try to get to a position where we can pass this bill out of the House and in fact pass it out of the Senate so that we can have some certainty as far as estate planning. So this issue has been around for some time. It has always enjoyed bipartisan support.

This rule simply provides for us to continue what we have been doing in the last four Congresses, and that is to pass and address this issue in a bipartisan manner. This issue has been around, I think it is timely, in fact, it is time for us to act on this. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from New York how many speakers she has, because I at this time have no more requests.

Mr. Speaker, let me just review. This issue has been around in Congress for some time. This House has acted on full repeal of the death tax for the last three Congresses on a bipartisan basis. But the reality is we simply can't get this through the full Congress because the other body simply doesn't have the votes, supermajority votes, I might add, to close off debate over there, so we have to pass something that can pass both Houses of the Congress. This bill does that. And it is important that we pass this bill as soon as we possibly can so those that are trying to plan estates after 2010 can make those plans with some certainty.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. This is a good rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding time, and I rise in support of this rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a global war that we did not seek but that was brought to our shores by actions of terrorists on September 11, 2001. The global war on terror is unlike other past wars. In the past the United States fought a clear enemy state. Today we fight an enemy without borders that threatens our free way of life.

When George Washington was elected as our first President, there was a king in France, a czarina in Russia, an emperor in China, and a shogun in Japan. The American President was the only elected leader at that time. Today, countries in every continent elect their own leaders. The number of democracies currently stands at an all-time high and has been growing without interruption for some time. Freedom and self- government is on the march around the world.

Mr. Speaker, why is this important? It is important, Mr. Speaker, because history has shown that those countries who elect their leaders are less belligerent than those who do not. Democracy and freedom are a threat to the terrorist ideology, which is why they fight so hard to keep self-government from taking hold.

The Middle East is an area where democracy has faced significant challenge. It is a region where we have seen entrenched dictatorships, continued violence, and civil unrest.

In an article from the Washington Times on June 12, Mark Stein cites four separate and recent incidents that took place in Baghdad, London, Toronto and Mogadishu. He goes on to say, and I quote, ``The world divides those who think the above are all part of the same story and those who figure they are strictly local items of no wider significance.'' I believe that these events are all rooted in the same ideology, and the United States, as the leader of the free world, stands in the way of this ideology.

We must not forget the sacrifice our military is making for the security and support of our ideals. They are fighting the enemy abroad so we will not have to fight them here. We must continue to support our troops and stay focused on defeating terrorism in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 868 and the underlying resolution declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, which is essential to the security of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a global war that we did not seek, but that was brought to our shores by the actions of terrorists on September 11, 2001. The Global War on Terror is unlike all other wars. In past wars the United States fought a clear enemy state--today, we fight an enemy without borders that threatens our free way of life.

When George Washington was elected the first President there was a king in France, a czarina in Russia, an emperor in China, and a shogun in Japan. The American President was the only elected leader at the time. Today, countries on every continent elect their own leaders. The number of democracies currently stands at an all-time high, and has been growing without interruption for some time. Freedom and self- government is on the march around the world. History has shown that those countries who elect their leaders are less belligerent than those that do not.

Democracy and freedom are a threat to the terrorists' ideology, which is why they fight so hard to keep self-government from taking hold. The Middle East is an area where democracy has faced significant challenges--it is a region where we see entrenched dictatorships, continued violence and civil unrest.

In an article from the Washington Times on June 12, Mark Steyn cites four separate and recent incidents that took place in Baghdad, London, Toronto and Mogadishu. He goes on to say, ``The world divides into those who think the above are all part of the same story and those who figure they're strictly local items of no wider significance . . .'' I believe these events are all rooted in the same ideology. The United States as the leader of the free world stands in the way of this ideology.

Mr. Speaker, this Global War on Terror is protecting the freedoms that terrorists seek to destroy by any means necessary. Throughout this war, the terrorists have been emboldened by weakness, but fortunately it is the brave actions of our military men and women who are proving to our enemy that America will persevere. We must not forget the sacrifice our military is making for our security and in support of our ideals. They are fighting the enemy abroad, so that we will not have to fight them here.

I am proud of the soldiers from my area in Central Washington who have stepped forward to defend our nation's security. In addition to contributing to the Global War on Terror in manpower--my district is home to the Yakima Training Center--where the soldiers of the Stryker Brigade train in settings designed to simulate real battlefield conditions in the War on Terror. They are helping to transform our military into a force that can meet the readiness demands of this new conflict.

As our troops employ the latest techniques to combat terrorism in this modern war--they clearly demonstrate the dedication and honor of military men and women before them. This has been apparent the two times I have traveled to Iraq, and when I visit with troops returning from the front.

Mr. Speaker, the Global War on Terror is not a war we sought, but it is one we must continue to fight and is vital we win. We face a clear choice today. Do we back down in the face of a determined enemy for a temporary reprieve, or do we stand firm and fight the terrorists abroad? I believe the answer is obvious. We must stand firm on the Global War on Terror.

While more work remains--thanks to our troops, America is safer. Saddam Hussein is being brought to justice and Iraq is being stabilized so that it is not a haven for future terrorist activities. We must continue to support our troops and stay focused on defeating terrorism in Iraq and around the world in order to keep American families and communities safe at home.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying resolution that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror.