Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier) for his graceful words. And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that no one has worked longer and harder over the years or devoted more personal energy to the critically important institutional issues of this House than the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Those issues do not win you many headlines back home but they are absolutely essential to our continuing ability to work in an effective bipartisan fashion history in the people's House.

So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for his leadership in the past and his insistence in moving this resolution to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced House Resolution 240 for one reason and one reason only: to restore a functioning ethics process here in the House. Regrettably, the Democrats have kept the Ethics Committee shut down now for more than 2 months. It simply must be restarted as soon as possible.

Members will recall that in January as part of our opening day rules package for the 109th Congress, the Members of this House adopted a series of much-needed ethics reforms. We adopted those reforms in order to ensure that the ethics rules treat Members of the House as fairly as possible.

We believe, for example, and still believe that it is unfair for the Ethics Committee to tell individuals called before the committee during an investigation whom they can or cannot hire as their lawyer. This right to counsel, after all, is a fundamental right enjoyed by all Americans, so we moved to protect it. In addition, we believed and still believe that it is unfair for Members to be publicly embarrassed when the committee issues a public letter of reprimand or admonishment or violation, et cetera, without providing the Member in question with any advance notice that they are being scrutinized by the committee in any way. So we moved to make sure that this never happens to any Member of either party in the future.

And finally, we believe and still believe that it is unfair for Members of either party to be kept in perpetual limbo after initial investigation of a complaint if a bipartisan majority of the committee cannot agree to proceed with the full-scale investigation. Contrary to many published reports, no investigation has ever been undertaken by the Ethics Committee without bipartisan support. But under the old rules of the 108th Congress, the burden of proof to get out from under an ethical cloud fell on the Member in question, whether Democrat or Republican. So we acted to restore fairness to that part of the ethics process as well.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the full House adopted these rules, the Democrat members of our committee refused to accept the clear directive of the House and to let us organize our committee. For 2 months now, I have worked in good faith to address the substantive objections of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) to these rules, and I know that he holds these objections in a very sincere way. And while I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from West Virginia, I regret that he has declined to consider any of my proposed compromises.

As it should be, membership on our committee is evenly divided between the majority and minority, which means that substantive action of any kind requires support from both sides of the aisle and a genuine commitment to compromise. However, Democrat leaders and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have made clear that they remain absolutely unwilling to compromise on any of these matters and insist on overturning the expressed will of the House by returning to the rules of the 108th Congress.

Because I believe it is severely damaging to this institution to permit Members on the other side of the aisle to keep the doors locked on the Ethics Committee, I have concluded that we must return now to the rules of the past Congress, the 108th Congress. My resolution would do just that. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that once Democrats agree to put a functioning Ethics Committee back in business, they will then agree to work with us in a bipartisan way to address the real problems of unfairness to Members that are inherent in the 108th rules.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have every right to expect the highest ethical standards here in the House. Those of us charged with upholding the integrity of the institution stand ready to carry out our important responsibilities.

Accordingly, I urge adoption of H. Res. 240 so all of us who serve on the Ethics Committee, from both sides of the aisle, can get back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to 2005 Washington State Teacher of the Year and one of four national finalists for 2005 Teacher of the Year--Ms. Tamara Steen.

Since 1963, Washington state has honored one outstanding classroom teacher each year who is then eligible for the national honor. I am extremely proud that out of over 2.8 million elementary and secondary teachers nationwide, Ms. Steen was recognized as one of four finalists for the national honor announced by President Bush.

Ms. Steen is an innovative and compassionate teacher who has taught in the small rural town of Mabton, Washington for over two decades. In her years of teaching she has motivated students to achieve a higher standard. Ms. Steen is a teacher who is willing to work hard for her students, and expects her students to work hard for her in return.

Ms. Steen currently teaches English at Mabton Junior/Senior High School where she uses innovative teaching strategies to actively engage her students in learning. Despite the many challenges she is faced with each day, Ms. Steen's enthusiasm for her profession and her devotion to her students continues to grow.

In a society where teachers do not always receive the appreciation they deserve, I am pleased to honor and commend Ms. Steen for her decades of dedication to students in Central Washington. Ms. Steen exemplifies the best of America.

To Ms. Steen and the teachers across America that are educating tomorrow's leaders, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 202 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 202 is a structured rule providing for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 8, a bill to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides for consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered, by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8, a bill introduced by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), permanently repeals the death tax. I commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) for championing an end to the death tax, as my former friend and colleague, Jennifer Dunn, did while serving in Congress. Through Jennifer's tireless efforts, in 2001 Congress acted in a bipartisan fashion to gradually phase out the death tax and fully eliminate it in 2010.

However, if Congress does not extend the death tax repeal beyond 2010, in 2011 small business owners and family farmers will once again be assessed the full death tax at the maximum 2001

rate. The death tax is a form of double taxation and 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 the family farm or business in order to pay the Internal Revenue Service. But, sadly, that is the situation many hard-working families would face if the death tax is not permanently abolished.

With permanent elimination of this tax, farmers and business owners will have the sense of security they need to plan for the financial future of their businesses, farms, or families. Death taxes are an unfair assault on every American's potential life savings. Today, we have the opportunity to bury the death tax for good.

The Committee on Rules reported House Resolution 202 by a voice vote. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both 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 gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a valuable member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a powerful member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind my colleagues that the rule that we are debating here to talk about the repeal of the death tax makes in order the substance of the subject that the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about, the Pomeroy substitute. We will have a vigorous debate on that. This is a very fair rule so that we can debate the difference between the two, and the body will work its will.

Mr. Speaker, I 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 the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that this body has addressed the issue of repealing or making permanent the death tax. In the 106th Congress, on a bipartisan basis, with 279 votes in favor, this body voted in favor of permanently eliminating the death tax. And the other body, also on a bipartisan basis, they, too, voted to permanently eliminate the death tax, but President Clinton vetoed that bill.

In the 107th Congress, again on a bipartisan basis, the House voted to eliminate the death tax permanently. Unfortunately, in the reconciliation of trying to put the differences between the two Houses together, we put the date of the 2011 when that would expire.

In the last Congress, once again the House addressed this issue and voted to permanently eliminate this death tax.

The bill that we will address when we pass this rule is exactly the same as the bill that we passed on a bipartisan basis in the last Congress.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet next week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 54, the Congressional Gold Medal Enhancement Act of 2005. The bill was introduced on January 4, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Financial Services.

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 Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 1 p.m. on Tuesday, January 25. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as introduced on January 4. Members are advised that the text of the bill as introduced is available for their review on the Web sites of the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, on January 4, 1965, Battelle was selected by the federal government to manage and operate what was then called the Hanford Laboratories, and is now called the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. I congratulate PNNL as it celebrates its 40th anniversary. PNNL is a unique asset to my congressional district, to Washington State, to the Pacific Northwest and to the entire nation.

In 1965, Battelle committed to create a robust research operation in the State of Washington. It has absolutely delivered on its commitment. In the last 40 years, the number of staff at the lab has tripled, and business has increased from $20 million in 1965 to more than $600 million in 2004. As a leader in innovation, PNNL is an enduring asset in the Tri-Cities with many spinoff companies and technologies. As such, the laboratory continues to build collaborations with the region's colleges and universities and other scientific enterprises.

With major contributions to national science and technology programs, especially in recent years on homeland and national security, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is a valuable national asset and a vital part of regional efforts to create better jobs and strengthen our economy.

Since 1965, Battelle has contributed more than $13 million to not- for-profit organizations in the region. Battelle has also invested more than $125 million in facilities and equipment at its campus in Richland. And as testimony to its excellent stewardship of the lab, PNNL continues to receive ``Outstanding'' ratings for management of the lab by the Department of Energy. It recently received its seventh consecutive Outstanding rating.

As we look back on this exceptional record, we can also look forward with anticipation to Battelle's continued leadership at PNNL. With the world class staff and resources at the lab, and Battelle's excellent management, there is no limit to what can be done.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by sharing the strong feelings that all of us have in the Tri-Cities and the State of Washington-- Battelle is a great employer, a great corporate citizen, and we look forward to many more years of its presence and commitment to a better Washington, a prosperous Pacific Northwest, and a safer world.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation to clarify the authority of state commissions to collect commodity assessments on the proceeds of marketing assistance loans.

Agriculture is the prime driver of the economy in my Central Washington congressional district. Many growers in my district make use of marketing loans that allow them to use their crop as collateral.

Many growers also participate in check-off programs for collecting an assessment on a certain crop. These assessments are normally collected at the first point of sale. The USDA and the Commodity Credit Corporation have supported state commissions in the collection of grower-funded commodity assessments when, because of low commodity prices, the commodity is forfeited to the government. The

state assessments have been collected under a Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA and state commodity commissions.

Recently, wheat growers in Washington and California voted to increase their support of commodity activities through an assessment increase. USDA has claimed that it lacks the statutory authority to honor a Memorandum of Understanding if the assessment rate is changed. This decision has the potential to cause serious impact to state commissions and disadvantage to growers that depend on their work. The use of funds is very important during times of low prices and oversupply, when the need for expanding markets increases.

This legislation introduced by my friend and colleague from Washington, Mr. Nethercutt and myself will authorize the USDA to continue to collect state commodity assessments in the event of forfeiture of a commodity to the federal government.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation to remove the Agricultural Adjustment Act requirement that processors be members of an agency administering a marketing order on pears.

I want to thank my friend and colleague from Oregon, Mr. Walden, for his hard work on behalf of the NW pear industry.

My Congressional district produces 44 percent of the nation's pears, and Washington State is the top pear producing state in the nation. The pear growers I represent and their fellow pear growers throughout the Pacific Northwest are working hard to meet the challenges of foreign competition and changing consumer tastes, and industry marketing organizations are a vital part of this effort. However, Northwest pear growers are operating under an unnecessarily complicated arrangement involving two federal marketing orders and two state commodity commissions. The industry would like to streamline its grade standards and marketing efforts by moving to a single federal marketing order.

Moving from four organizations doing the same job to one seems like common sense to me, but there is a problem. Current federal statute requires that any marketing order that covers pears for processing must have equal representation from producers and processors on its governing board. Keep in mind that it is producers, not processors, that pay the assessments and are subject to the marketing orders' quality standards. For this reason a requirement that processors have equal representation is unreasonable and is a barrier to the industry's plan to consolidate its organizations.

This legislation will simply remove the requirement that the number of producer and processor representatives be equal. If passed, our bill would allow the Northwest pear industry to establish a single federal marketing order that does not give disproportionate influence to one segment of the industry.

This legislation is supported by the Pacific Northwest pear industry, and the processors themselves do not oppose the removal of this provision.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 803 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 803 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides that the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3193 is a bipartisan measure sponsored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). The bill has 228 cosponsors from across the country, including 44 Democrats.

The bill simply permits law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia to own firearms, a right currently denied them by act of the D.C. City Council. The Nation's capital has the toughest laws and regulations in the country prohibiting gun ownership by citizens. This bill would repeal the most onerous of those laws, thereby permitting individuals to protect themselves and their families in their own homes and otherwise enjoy privileges of gun ownership comparable to those enjoyed by most American citizens.

This bill would not affect any laws currently aimed at criminals and would place strict penalties on criminals who use guns to commit crimes. In addition, all penalties are doubled for illegal possession of a firearm in a ``gun-free zone'' within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, college, or various youth facilities such as swimming pools and video arcades. Possession or use of a firearm while committing a crime of violence would remain punishable by up to 30 years in prison with a minimum 5 years served before eligibility for parole or probation.

Mr. Speaker, some have suggested that passage of H.R. 3193 may lead to an increase in violent crime, but I have to say that the facts suggest otherwise. Before the D.C. City Council imposed a handgun and home-defense ban in 1976, D.C.'s homicide rate had been declining. After the ban was instituted, however, D.C.'s homicide rate rose by more than 200 percent by 1991, while during the same period, the national homicide rate rose by just 12 percent. It is clear that this misguided and overly restrictive gun ban has not only failed to decrease violent crime in the District of Columbia, but it may have contributed to its increase. We have a chance today to do something about that.

So accordingly, Mr. Speaker, 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 am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the sponsor of this measure.

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, as the author of the House version of the ``Manhattan Project National Historical Study Act'' I rise today to offer my support for this legislation. Senator Cantwell and I have worked together across party lines to develop this proposal because it's important to the people of Central Washington. And, because it presents a unique opportunity to share a piece of our Nation's history. I am pleased that our plan has been brought up for consideration today and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

By providing for a study of our nation's Manhattan Project Sites, we take an important first step towards the goal of making Hanford's B Reactor into a museum. This is the first step in preserving the historic B Reactor for generations to come.

In 1943, only months after Enrico Fermi first demonstrated that controlled nuclear reaction was possible, ground was broken on the B Reactor--which went on to become the first full-scale plutonium production reactor. An integral part of the Manhattan Project, B Reactor produced the plutonium for the bomb dropped on Nagasaki that helped win World War II.

From a scientific standpoint, the B Reactor is a testament to American ingenuity and innovation. From a historical standpoint it represents a part of Central Washington's past and our Nation's past that should not be forgotten. For those who didn't live through World War II--the B Reactor helps tell the story of a workforce that contributed to our Nation's defense for so many years.

Walking through the B Reactor is like catching a glimpse into the 1940's. Because it has been left largely intact, the tour gives you a very real sense of what it might have been like to work at the B Reactor.

The B Reactor Museum Association and the local community are driving forces behind this project. I share their enthusiasm for preservation of the B Reactor and I believe this proposal is a great step towards making this project a reality.

It is especially appropriate that the House consider this proposal today because the local community will be celebrating B Reactor's 60th Anniversary on October 9th. I can think of no better way to commemorate this anniversary and honor those who worked at B Reactor than approving this bill and sending it to the President's desk.

As an author of this bipartisan plan, I encourage my colleagues to support the ``Manhattan Project National Historical Study Act'' so that we can begin studying how best to share the story of the B Reactor, and the Nation's other Manhattan Project Sites with future generations.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to create the Ice Age Floods National Geological Trail.

At the end of the Ice Age, 12,000-17,000 years ago, a series of cataclysmic floods occurred in what is now the northwest region of the United States. These floods left dramatic and distinguishing features on the landscape throughout Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon.

In 2001, a joint study team headed by the National Park Service, that included 70 members from public and private entities, completed a study endorsing the establishment of the Ice Age Floods National Geological Trail to recognize the national significance of this phenomenon and to coordinate public and private sector entities in the presentation of the story of the Ice Age Floods.

The Ice Age Floods National Geological Trail would reveal, to the public, a fascinating story that spans across the Pacific Northwest. Regional, national, and international travelers would have the opportunity to discover how immensely powerful cataclysmic floods had a profound effect in shaping distinctive landscapes and in defining ways of life, from the flanks of the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.

The Trail can be expected to generate significant economic benefit, through increased tourism, in a vast and largely rural region. I ask you to refer this legislation to the appropriate committee for consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Ohio that is offering this amendment, but on this one I think he is wrong. I want to associate myself with the ranking member and the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture but specifically with the ranking member when he made the observation that we are in a global economy. I think that is the issue that we ought to be focusing on when we talk about agriculture in general.

There has been a great deal of talk in the past as we enter into these trade agreements with the President with the trade promotion authority of putting the ag sector at a much higher level than it has been with the past trade deals. That is what we have to keep in mind, because I believe agriculture as a whole in the past has gotten the short shrift on these past trade agreements.

There has been criticism of this program in the past where it has gone to big corporations. That was changed back in 1998, and now the principal beneficiary of this MAP program are specialty crops. Specialty crops by definition do not have the great deal of support behind them to market their products. My district is full of specialty crops. To some, it may be big industry, but they are specialty crops, like apples. The apple industry uses this immensely. The potato industry in the Northwest, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, use this to market their raw products and their processed products. The hop industry, which is very small in my district but large nationwide, uses this overseas, as does the cherry industry. They are all the beneficiaries of this program.

I think as we go forward with these trade initiatives that the President is talking about in other areas this is a tool that the ag sector can use, and now is the time I think to continue funding. As a matter of fact, the farm bill authorizes more than what we are appropriating in this bill. We recognize the tight budget conditions, but I think this program is important. I urge my colleagues to reject the Chabot amendment and support the MAP program.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 711 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 711 is a modified closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2828, the Water Supply Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. The rule also waives all points of order against the bill, provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and waives all points of order against the bill as amended.

The rule further provides for consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report and accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) or his designee. Said amendment shall be considered as read and shall be separately debated for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.

Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2828 was introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and passed by the Committee on Resources on May 5, 2004, by a voice vote. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement badly needed water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water supplies.

As is the case if many parts of the West, considerable controversy has arisen over allocation of water from a vast network of rivers, marshes, wetlands, and open water known as the California Bay-Delta. This area covers 780,000 acres and supplies water to two-thirds of California's population and nearly 7 million acres of farm land through a series of pumps, canals, and dams operated by the Federal and State governments.

The competing demands for Bay-Delta water have stretched the resources capacity to provide reliable amounts of water to users and the ecosystem and cause conflicts among farmers, urban water contractors, and environmental groups.

The California Bay-Delta program, known as CALFED, was initiated in 1995 to resolve these water conflicts. Although a record of decision for the current CALFED program was issued in 2000, legislation to implement that program has yet to be enacted by Congress. H.R. 2828 establishes within the Office of the Secretary of the Interior an office of the Federal Water Resources Coordinator to be responsible for coordinating the activities of all Federal agencies involved in implementing the activities authorized under this act.

The bill directs the Secretary to undertake a competitive grant program to, one, investigate and identify opportunities for studying, planning, and designing water resource activities; and, two, construct demonstration and permanent facilities to further these purposes as well as other programs, projects and activities.

The bill also authorizes the Federal agencies to participate in the CALFED Bay-Delta program in accordance with the objectives and solution principles that will be set forth in the Record of Decision.

In addition, H.R. 2828 authorizes the Secretary to establish a program for the construction of rural water systems in the reclamation States in cooperation with other Federal agencies with rural water programs as well as non-Federal project entities.

Mr. Speaker, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2828 would cost $427 million over the 2005 to 2009 time period and $65 million after 2009. These amounts do not include the cost of constructing four new water storage projects authorized by this bill because construction would be begin after 2009.

CBO estimates that the Federal share of those additional construction costs could range from $200 million to $400 million over the 2010 to 2020 time period.

Enacting this bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. H.R. 2828 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on the State, local, or tribal governments.

Mr. Speaker, those of us from western States in particular are acutely aware of the importance of providing adequate water supplies in ways that protect sensitive environmental resources. Indeed, this is among the most challenging areas of domestic policy that we have. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and his colleagues on the Committee on Resources for tackling this difficult issue in a way that strikes a reasonable balance between economic development and environmental protection.

This bill is badly needed and long overdue. So accordingly, Mr. Speaker, 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the author of this legislation and one who has been a leader on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the gentleman is in violation of House rule XVII, which requires that a Member's remarks in debate shall be confined to the question under debate, and ask to be heard on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, House rule XVII, pertaining to Decorum and Debate provides in part that when a Member desires to speak or deliver any matter to the House, they shall on being recognized confine themselves to the question under debate.

To quote from section 948 of the House Rules and Manual:

``Debate on a special order providing for the consideration of a bill may range to the merits of the bill to be made in order, since the question of consideration of the bill is involved, but should not range to the merits of a measure not to be considered under that special order.''

Mr. Speaker, nothing in this rule or the bill it makes in order has anything to do with what occurred on the floor yesterday afternoon.

Therefore, I urge that the Chair uphold this point of order against this irrelevant debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

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

The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules will close on our side, so if the gentleman would like to close.

I have one speaker left. So if the gentleman is prepared to close, I am.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to transfer lands along the Cle Elum River in Washington. This legislation will transfer about 400 acres of land along the Cle Elum River in Washington state from the Secretary of Agriculture to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. The bill also provides for a subsequent land exchange involving a portion of these lands--about 40 acres--with a neighboring private landholder. This land is part of a larger tract that was acquired in the 1930s by the U.S. Reclamation Service to construct Cle Elum Dam and Reservoir. The land was in turn transferred to the Forest Service in 1966, after the Interior Department concluded it was no longer needed for Reclamation project purposes. The legislation I am introducing completes the cycle of returning a portion of the property back to Interior, and a smaller portion back to private ownership. This legislation enables a public-private partnership to develop much-need infrastructure and simplifies property boundaries. This legislation enjoys the support of local elected officials and many local organizations, businesses. I ask that you please refer this legislation to the proper committee for consideration.