Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 539 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam 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.)

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 539 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration.

The resolution also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. The energy and water development appropriations conference report provides a total of $30.5 billion to fund the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Energy, Department of Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation and several independent agencies for the current fiscal year.

The Bureau of Reclamation receives $1.1 billion to maintain and operate water infrastructure projects throughout the West.

The Department of Energy constitutes the bulk of the bill with funding of $24.3 billion. This represents a decrease of $129 million from fiscal year 2005.

Overall, the conference report represents a compromise between the House- and Senate-passed bills and deserves the support of my colleagues.

Madam Speaker, included in this bill are a number of projects and provisions of importance to my central Washington congressional district. The Bureau of Reclamation's budget provides $1.5 million to keep pace with a Federal study looking to add more water storage in the Yakima River basin and the potential of the Black Rock reservoir. Water storage is critical to the farmers and communities in this arid part of our Nation, and this year's drought made clear the importance of finding solutions for creating additional storage.

Funds were also provided for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue work to address the depletion of the Odessa Subaquifer on the Columbia Basin project, as well as needed improvements to the West Canal. Finding answers for farmers whose water supply is disappearing requires the active participation of the Bureau of Reclamation, and this bill continues the involvement that I was able to launch last year.

The final conference report also provides $18 million for the Department of Energy's budget for the transition of Pacific Northwest National Lab scientists and capabilities into new lab space. The buildings in which the scientists currently work are located in the Hanford site's 300 Area and will be torn down in the next few years to clean up this contaminated area.

The $18 million represents an increase of $10 million above DOE's budget request that I worked to add to make certain this effort remains on track and that construction activity can begin this year.

Ensuring the new lab space is ready and available before cleanup of Hanford requires the destruction of the scientists' current lab space is a top priority of mine, and I will continue to work hand-in-hand with the leaders of Pacific Northwest National Lab to make this happen.

This bill also funds the cleanup of the Hanford site. In February, I was disappointed with the Department of Energy's proposed funding for Hanford, and I have worked for months to restore some of that funding.

I am pleased that this bill provides increases above DOE's requested budget for several important cleanup projects in Hanford, including the River Corridor initiative, tank waste retrieval, groundwater protection, preserving the historic B Reactor, and continuing the important safety and training work of the Volpentest HAMMER facility.

There are very real cleanup successes being achieved at Hanford, and it is important to keep progress moving forward. This bill does, however, reduce funding for construction of the Waste Treatment Plant by $100 million, which is a reduction that DOE proposed. I have made my dissatisfaction with the situation created by the Department very clear, and I intend to keep pressing DOE to be open in providing answers on its plan for the Waste Treatment Plant.

DOE has repeatedly stated their commitment to building and completing the vitrification plant, and we simply cannot afford to have a lack of information from the Department create further challenges for this project.

Madam Speaker, this conference report comes to us with bipartisan support from the House-Senate conference committee, and I urge my colleagues to give bipartisan support for this rule and passage of the conference agreement.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy has been working for the past year on answering questions about challenges on construction of the waste treatment plant at the Hanford cleanup site, with only limited information being shared with Congress, the State of Washington, or the local community.

Just yesterday, the Department officially notified Congress that the costs of constructing the waste treatment plant have increased by more than 25 percent.

We were not told what caused the increase, what the Department's planned path forward is for the waste treatment plant, or what the ultimate cost and completion date will be. We know only that costs have increased by over 25 percent, and more information is promised in the summer of next year.

Waiting until next summer for answers is simply not acceptable to me. Is that also the view of the chairman?

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this reporting requirement, in my mind, is fully justified and delivers a strong message that the Department must be more direct, open, and prompt in sharing details on its path forward for the waste treatment plant. I want to thank the gentleman for his continued commitment to the environmental management program within the Department of Energy.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 470 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 470 is a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. The rule provides for 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources and waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

House Resolution 470 provides that, in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Committee on Resources print dated September 26 shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.

House Resolution 470 makes in order only those amendments printed in the

Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. The rule provides that amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Lastly, the resolution waives all points of order against amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instruction.

Mr. Speaker, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act is one of the most important bills we will consider on species recovery and property rights this year. I commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and other members of the Committee on Resources and their staffs who have worked hard to bring this legislation to this point. The result of their efforts is a solid bipartisan bill that updates key parts of the Endangered Species Act and provides enhanced protection for property owners.

For people of the rural West where I live, there are few more important matters than modernization of the ESA. Unfortunately, some of the most well-known examples of the ESA problems have occurred in my region of the country, the Pacific Northwest.

For example, Mr. Speaker, the Northwest timber industry was decimated by the listing of the spotted owl 15 years ago, only to discover that today, the spotted owls have actually been endangered and displaced by other owls. Imagine if we had emphasized recovery then. How many family-wage jobs would have been saved and how many more spotted owls would we have today?

Four years ago, water to family farms in the Klamath Basin in Oregon was cut off in the name of the sucker fish, when everyone knew there were other measures that would truly help species recover without bankrupting businesses and families. Every summer, in excess of $3 million is being spent per listed salmon. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that. Every summer in excess of $3 million per salmon is spent to spill water over dams, even though science and common sense tells us that there are better ways of species recovery.

This is all the result of the Endangered Species Act becoming too driven by litigation and conflict. Simply put, this act is broken, and it is in need of updating.

If we put off modernizing the ESA, it is not just the people of my region that will suffer. It is also the animals and plants that the ESA is supposed to protect that are the victims. ESA's record of recovery of listed species is abysmal. Less than 1 percent of the species listed under the act have actually been recovered. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, only 6 percent of the species are categorized as recovering. Each year, Federal agencies are spending more on paperwork, process, court cases, and lawyers and less on real on-the-ground recovery efforts. We, frankly, must reverse this trend.

The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act puts the priority where it should be, on recovery. This bill will require agencies to complete recovery plans within 2 years of listing. These plans will require the identification of lands important for species recovery, in lieu of the cumbersome and litigation-driven critical habitat process.

In addition, the bill authorizes collaborative recovery teams made up of a diverse group of stakeholders, including people with conservation expertise as well as those whose livelihoods are affected by environmental policies. Again, there is a fundamental shift here from confrontation and litigation to cooperation and recovery. It is long overdue.

This legislation also offers important new tools for encouraging voluntary participation in species recovery efforts by private property owners. The ESA is currently written with its emphasis on punitive measures and regulation serves as a disincentive for any private property owner to provide habitat for a listed species.

This legislation provides ``no surprises'' protections for land holders entering into habitat conservation plans with the government. In addition, this bill offers financial aid to those whose property has been restricted for conservation purposes. After all, species recovery is a national goal that benefits all Americans, and the cost of that effort should not fall solely on the shoulders of land holders.

Another important improvement in the ESA that this bill would provide is strengthening the science and data used in decision-making. This legislation puts the emphasis on objectively quantifiable and peer- reviewed science. Stronger science and ESA information will result in our limited Federal resources going to where they will do the most good, while reducing instances of drastic Federal actions being taken on poor or limited data. These are the things that we should all be able to agree upon.

H.R. 3824 is a solid bipartisan bill that will do much to bring this important law up to date. I again commend my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support both the rule, House Resolution 470, and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a valued member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from Oregon that his amendment during the markup in the Rules Committee was not offered by either side to be voted on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science.

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

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, I acknowledge that the gentleman from Oregon sent his amendment to the Committee on Rules. My point was during the markup of the rule, there was no attempt on the other side to amend the rule to make his amendment in order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), a member of the Committee on Resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the author of this bill, and somebody who has worked extremely hard on this for at least 12 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of rhetoric thus far on the rule, and I suspect there will be a lot of rhetoric when we debate the bill; but there is one underlying thread here that needs to be mentioned. It was mentioned by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

That is that the Endangered Species Act needs to be updated.

I came here 10 years ago, and this is one of the big issues that was very important to my constituency when I first ran. There was talk then about amending the Endangered Species Act, but there was no agreement at all. We did get a bill out of committee. Unfortunately, it did not go any further.

But now we hear today that there is 90 percent agreement on the need to change the Endangered Species Act, but there is violent 10 percent disagreement on what those means should be. I contend that is huge, huge movement from where we have gone in 10 years. I do not know what the reasons are, but I expect the reasons are the inflammation of the existing Act.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 437 to establish a select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Madam Speaker, Congress has an important constitutional role to play in providing oversight to the executive branch and Federal agencies. But more importantly, Congress has a responsibility to the people we represent to investigate the preparation and response efforts to Hurricane Katrina and make recommendations on how we can better prepare and respond to disasters in the future.

Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose the idea of a bipartisan congressional committee held accountable to the people and by the people who elect us. But, Madam Speaker, a bipartisan investigative committee held directly accountable by the people is exactly what is needed

Because we never know when or where the next disaster will strike, it is vital that Congress move swiftly to investigate how local, State, and Federal governments, along with the private relief agencies, can better communicate with one another and coordinate the relief efforts. America must be better prepared to handle disasters in the future.

Madam Speaker, I am saddened that hours after Hurricane Katrina rescue and recovery efforts began, lawmakers were publicly pointing fingers rather than focusing on how to help the victims. Clearly, clearly in hindsight there are things that could have been done better. Only now that victims have been rescued and their immediate basic needs are being met is it appropriate that an investigation of what happened begin.

There is no question that Hurricane Katrina caused great devastation, the magnitude of which becomes more evident every day. But, Madam Speaker,

one of America's greatest strengths is our long-standing tradition of pulling together in times of need.

I am proud that in my home State of Washington, which is located 2,500 miles from Louisiana and the gulf coast, families are reaching out to help those affected. Communities are collecting food, clothing, and cash donations. For example, Washington apple growers have contributed truckloads of world-class apples to people living in Mississippi and the other hard-hit areas and throughout America. Families are opening up their homes, businesses are employing dislocated workers, citizens are traveling to the gulf coast region to help with recovery and rebuilding efforts, and schools are teaching children who have been displaced from their schools, homes, and friends.

America has been challenged by natural disasters in the past, and we will no doubt be challenged by disasters in the future. Only by Republicans and Democrats working together in a bipartisan fashion will the best interests of our Nation prevail.

Madam Speaker, there is much to be learned from this disaster. We must examine what worked, what did not, and what we need to do to be better prepared. The primary focus of this bipartisan investigative committee should be that we should begin to prepare for the disasters ahead and not to assign blame. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 437.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for publication the attached copy of the Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the House of Representatives for the 109th Congress.

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct adopted these rules pursuant to House rule XI, clause (2)(a)(1) on May 4, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 394 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 394 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The resolution also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, there are few matters that we will consider this year as important as this comprehensive energy plan. As we are all know too well, our Nation badly needs an updated energy strategy. High oil and natural gas prices are causing stress on our economy by raising the price of energy on almost all consumer products, driving up costs for American families, and on job-creating businesses.

Every industry from agriculture to tourism to manufacturing is negatively affected by high energy costs. We need to update our laws to reflect the changing global energy market, encourage conservation and energy efficiency, and to foster the advance of new technologies that make traditional fuels cleaner and make emerging energy sources more reliable and competitive.

This conference report will do just that. This legislation reflects the fact the energy challenges we face today are complex, that no single approach is going to solve all of the problems. This comprehensive energy strategy takes a balanced approach. It includes incentives related to oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy, but also emphasizes conservation, energy efficiency and renewables.

The energy plan updates and enhances the Energy Star Program, promotes the use of clean coal technology, clarifies the process for siting liquified natural gas terminals, encourages development of hydrogen-powered cars, and extends tax incentives for the production of renewable energy from wind, biomass and other resources.

With respect to electrical power issues, this legislation includes consensus language providing for mandatory reliability standards for electric transmission to help prevent blackouts like we saw in the Northeast in 2003. It also encourages investment in transmission lines to eliminate bottlenecks in the electric grid. There are also important provisions providing for enhanced consumer protection against the kind of market manipulation we experienced in the west coast electricity market 4 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of areas that are particularly of interest to my part of the country, the Pacific Northwest. We depend on clean, renewable hydropower for much of our electricity consumed in our region; however, the relicensing process that non-Federal dams must go through is too cumbersome and needs to be reformed. It currently takes an average of 10 years to get through the relicensing, but often that can take longer. This energy bill provides for a much needed overhaul of this lengthy dam relicensing process, potentially saving ratepayers millions of dollars while ensuring protections for other river interests to remain in place.

License applicants will now have the ability to propose alternative license conditions to those made by Federal source agencies. These more cost-effective alternatives will then be accepted, provided they are shown to provide the same level of environmental protection.

This conference report also preserves regional flexibility in achieving certain national electric marketing and transmission goals. This reflects the reality of what works in many areas of the country, but may not work in other areas that have a hydropower-based system.

This legislation strikes the proper balance on these and many other complex energy issues. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton )and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, for their perseverance and leadership in crafting this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to take action to combat high energy costs and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Let us pass this balanced and bipartisan energy plan.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, an individual that has worked extremely hard on this legislation along with the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and deserves a great amount of credit for bringing this legislation forward.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 additional minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, 4\1/2\ years ago, President George W. Bush stood in this Chamber during his first State of the Union Address and said, ``We have a serious energy problem that demands a national energy policy. Our energy demands outstrip our supply. We can produce more energy at home while protecting our environment, and we must. We can produce more electricity to meet demand, and we must. We can promote alternative energy sources and conservation, and we must. America must become more energy independent, and we will.''

Today, Mr. Speaker, this rule brings before the House a comprehensive, bipartisan energy plan that will help us produce more energy at home while protecting the environment; produce electricity to meet increasing demand; and promote alternative energy sources and conservation. This energy plan will help America meet its demands of today while planning for the energy needs of future generations, and it will allow us to become more energy independent.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, House Resolution 394, and the underlying bill.

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, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I want to congratulate him on the work that he has done on free trade issues in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill, to implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement. This agreement is especially important for my State of Washington, which is one of the most trade-dependent States in the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a global economy. And while 80 percent of Central American and Dominican Republic products enter the United States duty free, American exports face tariffs of 33 to 100 percent or higher in these countries; this is simply not a level playing field.

By approving CAFTA-DR, tariffs on American exports will be drastically reduced or eliminated. In fact, under CAFTA-DR, 80 percent of U.S. exports will become duty free immediately and the remaining tariffs will be phased out over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, more than half of current U.S. farm exports to Central America and the Dominican Republic will gain immediately duty-free access, including beef, wheat, wine, fruits, and vegetables.

In particular, the agreement includes a provision I worked for that would grant central Washington's apple, pear, and cherry growers immediate duty-free access to Central American and to Dominican Republic markets.

These tariffs currently range from 14 to 25 percent. And our fruit growers' major competitor in the region, Chile, which has already signed a trade treatment with CAFTA countries, is not subject to similar duties. This does level the playing field.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement will help potato growers in central Washington fairly compete with Canadian potato exporters who are subject to lower tariffs because of favorable trade agreements reached by Canada and Costa Rica. According to the Washington State Potato Commission, central Washington and U.S. potato exports to Costa Rica have declined by 81 percent as a result of the Canada-Costa Rica agreement, and U.S. producers will continue to lose market share unless CAFTA-DR is approved.

Many associations in my State have voiced support for CAFTA-DR, including the Washington State Farm Bureau, the Northwest Horticultural Council, the Washington State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Washington Apple Commission, the Washington State Potato Commission, to name only a few.

Mr. Speaker, CAFTA-DR will help level the playing field for our farmers and tree fruit growers and is a crucial step forward for agriculture and many other industries that create jobs and play important roles in the long-term growth of our economy.

The Senate has approved this agreement by a vote of 54 to 45. It is now time for the House to do the same to ensure that this measure and the benefits that it will provide will become law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), my classmate and good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very tempted by my friend on the Committee on Rules that I serve with when he says we follow these rules, this rule says waives all points of order against consideration of the bill in item 3; five, says waives all points of order; eight, it says waives all points of order. There is a notwithstanding clause.

I want to know what part does the gentleman see as following the rules. The simple fact of the matter is we are not going to be discussing Darfur, we are not going to be discussing Colombia, we are not going to be discussing Haiti, and somewhere along the line we could have done that under the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, or WRDA.

Our Nation's water resource infrastructure is critical to our economy, transportation system, power generation, flood control, and environmental protection and restoration. This is especially true in my area in the Pacific Northwest.

Our region's river system is a great resource, a resource that must be well-managed and protected. Hydroelectric dams provide clean, low- cost renewable power. These facilities also provide a system of locks that allow for the efficient transport of tons of agricultural products to coastal ports, which reduces congestion on our highways and rail systems. The dams allow for the control of floods, should that be necessary.

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

I want to highlight several provisions of this bill that are of importance to the communities and individuals that I represent in central Washington.

Like the WRDA bill passed by the House in the last Congress, this bill includes direction to the Corps of Engineers to allow workers at northwest dams to participate in wage surveys. This is a simple matter of equity as workers' participation in wage survey is afforded to other Federal workers doing similar jobs, especially at other facilities in the northwest. I have worked with the United Power trade organization on this effort, and I am pleased it once again will pass the House.

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

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

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

This is the purpose of the WRDA bill and why it is important that it pass the House and the Senate act on it this year to ensure that this measure and the benefits it provides will become law.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying WRDA bill.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Upper White Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, H.R. 38, passed the House by a voice vote. I want to make clear where I stand on this issue.

The White Salmon River begins in the Cascade Mountains, fed by snowmelt from nearby Mt. Adams and the rains for which Western Washington is famous. The river makes its way south, winding through Skamania and Klickitat counties, until it meets the Columbia River in the heart of the Columbia River Gorge.

The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act made much of the lower river part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program. At the same time, it directed the Forest Service to study the suitability of the upper river for designation as well. The legislation passed this week adds 20 miles of the Upper White Salmon River and Cascade Creek to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program. This portion of the river is entirely within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and outside of the Fourth District of Washington, which I represent.

While I did not oppose the legislation the House passed earlier this week, I do want to make clear that I would have considerable concerns with any proposal to declare as Wild and Scenic any currently undesignated portions of the White Salmon River that flows through the district that I represent. The views of local county commissioners, elected officials and affected landowners would be of paramount interest to me should any such designation be suggested or proposed. This portion of the river does not run through Federal land, but through private property of economic importance to the landowners and local communities. The burden of Federal regulation is already very heavy on the area, and I have great reservations about actions that would make the load even more difficult to bear.

We have an obligation to protect the natural treasures of the Columbia Gorge while also protecting the livelihoods of those that make their homes there. I look forward to continuing to work closely with my colleagues from the Northwest to make sure we strike the right balance on such matters.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank again my colleagues from California, Texas and Florida. I think that kind of at least covers the breadth of the Nation. In the breadth of the Nation, I think what happens sometimes is maybe some of our colleagues have never suffered discrimination, but I have gone seeking an apartment that later was rented to someone else and told that the apartment was not available. It hurts.

We should stop that kind of discrimination. We made progress, but we are not nearly there yet. This is a $7 million fund that can assist us in avoiding some measures of housing discrimination.

As far as the chairman's suggestion about the backlog, one of the reasons the backlog occurs is because people do not get on the front end and do their work. It is like EEOC. They have a backlog because they do not have the funds to do what we could have them do if we properly funded it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Joyce McMillin, a constituent of mine who dedicated so much of her time and energy to honoring the brave men and women who have served our Nation in uniform. Honoring. our veterans was a priority for Joyce--as it should be for all Americans.

Along with her husband Tom, who himself is a veteran of the Korean War, Joyce made it one of her final missions in life to create a memorial to those who have fought to protect our Nation. It is because of her vision, hard work and perseverance that the Regional Veterans Memorial now stands in Kennewick's Columbia Park.

Creating the Regional Veterans Memorial was not an easy process. After coming up with the idea, Joyce and Tom had to sell their vision to the community, secure a location and raise the funds necessary to build it.

Tragically, Joyce lost her battle with cancer shortly before the Regional Veterans Memorial ribbon cutting ceremony, which she had organized. I recently had the opportunity to visit the Memorial, and it is an impressive and fitting monument to American soldiers--past and present. It is a special place for current and future generations to reflect on the sacrifices made by those who have served in our Armed Forces. This Memorial is truly Joyce McMillin's legacy to the Tri- Cities. Our community is a better place because of her.

I would like to conclude by noting how proud I am to live in a community that is so committed to our veterans. I commend the McMillin family, the Tri-Cities Memorial Committee and everyone who helped make the new Regional Veterans Memorial a reality.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 304 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, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 304 is a rule providing for 2 hours of general debate on H.J. Res. 27, withdrawing the approval of the United States from the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, to be equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

The rule provides that during consideration of H.J. Res. 27 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this fair rule, but in opposition to the underlying H.J. Res. 27, withdrawing the approval of the United States from the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.

In 1994, Congress passed the Uruguay Round Table Agreements Act establishing the World Trade Organization, an independent body charged with monitoring and determining compliance with trade agreements. That law authorized the President to accept the United States' membership in the WTO and requires a report to be submitted to Congress every 5 years on the United States' participation in the WTO.

The law also offers Congress the opportunity every 5 years to assess whether continued membership in this organization is in the best interest of the United States. I believe that Members of the House should be afforded this opportunity to register their views on this question through a vote of the House, which I urge my colleagues to vote on in support of this rule.

The United States already has low tariffs, few subsidies, and a history of abiding bylaws and agreements. Our farmers and producers in my area in central Washington and across the country are some of the most efficient in the world and are capable of competing and winning in world markets, so long as they do not face foreign government policies like subsidies and dumping practices that stack the deck against them.

The enforcement of a rules-based trading system through the World Trade Organization is our best opportunity to gain access to these markets for our Nation's farmers and rural communities. The removal of artificial barriers to trade is of critical importance

to apple growers and tree fruit farmers in the agricultural-based economy in central Washington that I represent.

I am pleased that in 2003, the World Trade Organization stood up for the apple growers in central Washington and across the Nation by leveling the playing field in a dispute over Japan's import restrictions on imported U.S. apples. For nearly a decade, U.S. apple growers dealt with Japan's unjustified import requirements, which are imposed with no scientifically sound evidence. Trade restrictions should be based on scientific evidence and should be implemented on a limited basis, not used merely as tools to create unfair trade barriers.

The World Trade Organization ruled that Japan's restrictions were not justified and were in breach of their World Trade Organization obligations. This United States victory brought the hopes of meaningful access to Japan's markets to the domestic apple industry and will help us fight similar trade barriers in markets throughout the world.

Withdrawing from the World Trade Organization would result in our farmers, growers, and producers being shut out of these export opportunities and the loss of millions of jobs depending on them. Therefore, I believe that we must support our Nation's continued membership in the WTO and must continue aggressive enforcement of the rules of international trade. Our Nation's economy can continue to grow if we have access to global markets on a level playing field.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just ask my friend from California, I have no more requests for time except for me to close. If she is prepared to yield back, I will be prepared to yield back.

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

Mr. Speaker, American workers produce goods that are second to none. However, our success in selling these goods in a global marketplace, and we have to admit that we are in a global market, is dependent on fair and open markets. The World Trade Organization continues to advance and create more fair and open markets.

While I oppose the underlying bill, Members of the Congress should have the opportunity today to examine the merits of the United States' participation in the WTO. The debate on House Resolution 27 is an important one, and one that should be had.

So I urge my colleagues to support the rule, House Resolution 304, and to oppose the underlying bill.

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, while I am not present for today's debate on this rule or on the underlying Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill due to an illness in my family, I do urge my colleagues to support both measures.

This is an open rule and allows for full debate on funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and all programs and activities of the Department of Energy in the next fiscal year.

Writing this bill was a challenging task, as Subcommittee Chairman Hobson had over $130 million less to spend in Fiscal Year 2006 than was spent in Fiscal Year 2005. I commend Chairman Hobson for the tremendous leadership he has shown in constructing this bill and for garnering bipartisan support for it in both his Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee. I fully expect it will pass this House with strong bipartisan support as well.

I particularly want to thank Chairman Hobson for the continued commitment he has shown to the Department of Energy's Environmental Management program and cleanup of the Hanford site in Washington state. The Administration's proposed budget reductions at Hanford would have jeopardized the progress and cleanup momentum that has been achieved through accelerated cleanup over the past 3 years and put cleanup deadlines in jeopardy of being missed. The restoration of over $200 million for Hanford in this bill will ensure that cleanup momentum continues, the Department has the ability to meet its legal timelines, and that skilled workers remain on the job.

The Federal government has a legal and moral obligation to cleanup Hanford and the Nation's other nuclear waste sites, and this bill ensures that these promises are kept.

In addition to significantly restoring funds to Hanford's budget, this bill provides funding for preservation of the B Reactor, for operation of the Volpentest HAMMER training facility, and for the critical effort to develop replacement lab space for Pacific Northwest National Lab scientists who will soon be required to vacate their current workspaces for cleanup work. PNNL is home to world-class researchers and ensuring they are able to continue their work is important for our Nation and for the economic future of the TriCities community in Washington state.

While water project funding is much tighter this year due to overall spending constraints, I am pleased that several important Washington state initiatives were included in this bill. Scarce funds will be used to continue the progress on the Bureau or Reclamation study of additional water storage in the Yakima River Basin that I began in 2003. Additional funding is also provided for work to address depletion of the Odessa Subaquifer, the Port of Sunnyside's wastewater treatment and wetland restoration project, and the deepening of the Columbia River channel.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support passage of the underlying Energy and Water Appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.