Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5384, the agriculture appropriations bill for the year 2007. This is the third of 11 bills the committee plans to bring to the House floor before the 4th of July break.

I want to especially praise Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro, as well as members of the Agriculture Subcommittee and their staff, for the very fine work done on this bill.

In total, this measure provides $18.4 billion in total discretionary spending. This level represents a decrease, that is a decrease, of $96 million below the FY 2006 enacted level. The bill contains critical funding to protect health and safety, fulfill our commitment to important food and nutrition programs and support farmers and ranchers, as well as rural America.

I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, two additional points about the measure. First, the bill before us today includes $435 million in Member-project funding, which is $35 million below, that is, below last year's House-bill level. It is $277 million below last year's House- Senate conference report as well.

This bill also terminates eight programs resulting in $414 million in taxpayer savings; eight programs, $414 million in taxpayer savings.

Mr. Chairman, this agriculture bill is Mr. Bonilla's last bill as chairman of this subcommittee; and to say the least, this bill is a very fine product, and it is worthy of our support.

I want to commend Mr. Bonilla and certainly Ms. DeLauro, as well, for their work on this very fine measure. Indeed, it is a reflection of the best work of our committee. Mr. Bonilla is to be congratulated for his service as chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising to speak to this point of order and a series of points of order that may be coming to us, and in an effort to do that, I would like to have an exchange with the chairman of the committee, if I might, Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Chairman, first let me compliment you for the very fine job that you have done on this bill and compliment Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked with us on this very, very important item.

The point of order before us involves some $375 million of funding that affects our military expenditures and the availability of resources, especially in our effort on the war on terror in the Middle East.

There will be additional points of order, apparently raised that will increase that amount significantly if I am correct. Is that correct?

And so really what we would appear to have before us are Members unilaterally identifying paragraphs that they are not particularly pleased with that involve moneys, maybe at a level, say, of $375 million, that specifically affect our military effort in the Middle East.

Mr. Chairman, let me say to you, you have done a fabulous job with this bill. It is a very difficult bill. People oftentimes do not understand the difficulties of putting together a bill like this. To exercise themselves in a way that undermines our efforts on the war on terror is not just an affront to the work you are about; I believe it is an affront to the work that we are all about, on a bipartisan effort are attempting to make sure that we have some strength in this effort on the war on terror.

Mr. Chairman, I do want the gentleman to know that I have great respect for the work that you and your staff have been about, but also the work that Mr. Edwards and others on the other side of the aisle have been about regarding this very important responsibility that we have here, and I appreciate very much your work.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my chairman yielding me this time, and I want to express my deep appreciation to him for his work, as well as for Norm Dicks of Washington. This is a fabulous bill, in my view. It is the first step in the passage of 11 of our bills between now and the 4th of July break, all of them off the House floor.

This bill reflects exactly the approach and style we are attempting to take within our committee this year and in the years ahead. The total spending on this bill provides $19.5 billion in total discretionary spending. That is a $145 million decrease from the previous year.

The chairman and the ranking member are attempting to help us balance the importance of preserving our resources, our environment, and, indeed, our country as we move towards energy independence. And one of the pieces of preserving our independence is to make certain that our appropriations process is spending less money, not more money, in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations have until 3 p.m., May 15, 2006, to file a privileged report, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 7 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 16, 2006, at 12:30 p.m., for morning hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, May 15, 2006, at 2 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I would like today to congratulate the medical staff and administration of the St. Bernadine Medical Center for providing 75 years of top quality medical care to the residents of San Bernardino County, California.

When local doctors and community leaders laid plans for a new hospital in 1929, they intended it to be modeled after St. Mary's Hospital in Rochester, Minnesota, home of the Mayo Clinic. Led by Dr. Philip Savage and Father Patrick Dunn of St. Bernadine Catholic Church, they approached the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word in Houston, and the Sisters agreed to support a new hospital, providing a $550,000 investment to get it started. A local fund drive brought another $100,000, and St. Bernadine Hospital was created.

During the early years of operation in the midst of the Depression, the Sisters often would take payment for medical services in the form of fruits, nuts and chickens. The original 125 beds, five surgical rooms, operating theatre and other support facilities served the community until the 1950s, when a series of expansions began.

In the past 50 years, the medical center has grown to a 463-bed acute-care facility providing the nearly 2 million residents of San Bernardino County with some of the most advanced technologies and practices in the nation. The 1,400 employees serve thousands of patients a year, including 43,000 in the Emergency Department alone. The Five-Star maternal-child health center handles 2,600 births a year.

Most recently, the medical center has established the Inland Empire Heart Institute, which is ranked as one of the top two hospitals in Southern California for heart surgery volume. Blue Shield has designated it a Center of Excellence. The Medical Center is also rated as the best in the region for orthopedic care.

Although it is still sponsored by the Sisters of Charity, the medical center is now part of Catholic Healthcare West. From Mother Sebastian, the hospital's first administrator in 1931, to current president Steven Barron and board chairman Wilfrid Lemann, the leadership of St. Bernadine Medical Center has showed devotion to providing the very best health care for our community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues join in congratulating St. Bernadine Medical Center on their 75-year legacy of top-quality medical care, and wish the medical staff and administration further success in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I would like today to congratulate the faculty, staff, students and alumni of California State University, San Bernardino for 40 years of success in providing top-quality education for one of the most diverse student bodies in the nation.

I was a proud new member of my hometown school board in 1965 when state officials recognized the need for higher education in the Inland Empire and opened California State College at San Bernardino with 293 students and 93 faculty and staff members. The coverage area for the college was 27,000 square miles, taking in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The first graduating class in 1967 was 59 students.

Since that quiet start, our local college has become one of the fastest-growing in the state. More than 16,400 students now attend and 3,500 graduate each year--more than 55,000 over the past 40 years. The college became California State University, San Bernardino in 1984.

California's higher education system is still considered one of the finest in the world, and the state university system produces 51 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded by all public and private institutions in the state. The university system has calculated that the increased education level and earning power brought to our economy by these graduates is $25 billion a year. CSUSB alone is calculated to provide $500 million in expenditures annually and supports 10,000 jobs in our region through the ripple effects of salaries, construction, purchases and student spending.

The university now has five academic colleges, offering more than 70 degrees and certificates. The College of Education consistently ranks among the top CSU campuses that produce credentialed teachers, and many programs have gained national recognition. The university's Inland Empire Center for Entrepreneurship has been recognized among the nation's best by Entrepreneur Magazine.

CSUSB has had three dynamic presidents: John Pfau, Anthony Evans and Albert Karnig, the current president. I have enjoyed working closely with Presidents Evans and Karnig during my time in Washington. The university has utilized a number of small federal investments to create many successful programs, including the Water Resources Institute, the entrepreneurship center and a wide-ranging distance-learning program for the Department of Defense.

The university has been especially successful in partnering with local governments and community groups to improve the quality of life in San Bernardino County, and its student body is considered one of the most diverse in the state system--in fact, there is no majority ethnic group on campus.

In recent years, there have been many signs of a rapidly maturing educational institution: Robert V. Fullerton Art Museum has a regional reputation for cultural contribution; Coussoulis Arena is the largest facility of its kind in the Inland Empire; and a permanent branch campus has been established in the rapidly-growing Coachella Valley.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that in the past 40 years, California State University, San Bernardino has become one of the most important institutions in the Inland Empire, and a huge contributor to our state's economic future. Please join me in congratulating its faculty, staff and students for their past and future success.

Mr. Speaker, I would like today to pay tribute to a longtime public servant, Thomas R. Laurin, who has played a key role in improving the economy and quality of life for San Bernardino County over the past three decades as community development agency director.

Although Tom Laurin is not a native of San Bernardino, he moved there at a young age when his Air Force father came to Norton Air Force Base. He graduated from San Gorgonio High School (a rival of my alma mater, San Bernardino High) and received a bachelor's degree from California State University, San Bernardino.

After receiving his master's degree in Urban Geography at the University of Northern Colorado, Tom Laurin returned in 1977 to join the San Bernardino County Office of Community Development. He eventually became the Director of Community Development and Housing.

When Tom joined local government, San Bernardino County had 746,000 people and only two cities had more than 50,000 residents. Today, nearly 2 million people live in San Bernardino County, and 14 cities include a population of more than 50,000--four have more than 150,000.

As my colleagues know, this kind of explosive growth brings tremendous challenges to local government. Urban problems like crime, dilapidated housing, and a lack of local amenities have all been confronted by the Community Development Agency.

Under the leadership of director Laurin, I believe the agency has more than met those challenges, and made the county by far a better place to live even as it has been one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. He has helped the county utilize $188 million in federal grants, and secured $750 million in tax-exempt affordable housing loans.

I have had the pleasure of working closely with Tom on the county's Neighborhood Initiative Program, designed to improve entire neighborhoods of low-cost housing. Working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Fannie Mae, the county took a $15 million grant and rehabilitated neighborhoods in Redlands, Highland, San Bernardino and adjacent unincorporated areas.

More than 550 homes, many of them shuttered HUD foreclosures, were fixed up and are now owned by proud low- and moderate-income families. The program generated an additional $12 million, which was reinvested. It has won numerous national awards.

Tom Laurin created the county's first Enterprise Zone, which has helped hundreds of businesses and thousands of employees gain economic success. He created the county's Enterprise Funding Corporation, which after 20 years is still assisting local business. And he oversaw creation of innovative financing and development programs that helped create for-profit businesses to dispose of millions of trees that had been killed by bark beetles in the San Bernardino Mountains.

More than 20 of Tom's projects have received awards from state and national organizations, as well as HUD Best Practices awards. He has served on many state and national boards, and is a sought-after speaker on community development issues. For five years, he has been a CSU San Bernardino professor on urban issues.

Mr. Speaker, after nearly 30 years of top-level public service, Tom Laurin will retire as Community Development Director in April. I ask you and my colleagues to please join me in thanking him for his work on behalf of the people of San Bernardino County, and wishing him well on his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to rise and challenge the chairman of the authorizing committee regarding a dairy issue.

He and I have talked about this on many occasions; and frankly, much of that which he suggests as a potential solution to the California- Nevada-Arizona problem I am in total agreement with.

My difficulty is that I have reviewed with great care all of those suspensions that are on the floor today. This is the controversial suspension. And indeed, rather than talking policy, I will talk policy all that my colleagues would like today, I would prefer to discuss the violation of procedure that is involved here.

Under our rules, suspensions are to be addressing issues that are not controversial, that Members on both sides of the aisle are able to largely agree upon. There are minor exceptions to this. But in this case, we are talking about a violent exception.

It is clearly understood by people operating with this bill on both sides of the aisle that I have had very strong opposition and others have had opposition to this policy. And yet to have it come to the floor as a suspension with no notice whatsoever, I mean, I learned last Friday by accident that this bill was going to be on the floor.

Frankly, I might be on a plane today, otherwise; and it is hardly the way to treat Members on either side of the aisle dealing with a fundamental question of procedure. So for that reason initially I have expressed my very strong opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will speak just for a moment, for the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) talked about a loophole. The loophole that he is talking about really is a part of an existing law. But if there is a loophole, it is handled by a regulation that has been handled by the Department recently.

That very regulation is currently being challenged in the courts, and people are attempting to codify that regulation in order to bypass my constituents' opportunity in the courts. They were due to appear in court tomorrow to defend their interest, and this bill is on the floor today, making it not just a very controversial issue, but violating our very fundamental process.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the House to be very reserved about using the suspension process in this fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, responding directly to my colleague from California's point, indeed it has been suggested that we are dealing with dairy policy in a major way here on the floor. If that is the case, clearly we should not be handling that very policy by way of a suspension matter. It is a fundamental violation of that process.

This bill has had a number of years for possible consideration in the authorizing committee; and, yet, the authorizing committee has never held a hearing on this subject, the subject of the Senate bill that is before us today.

I would suggest to us that our authorizers need to, in a fundamental way, look at national dairy policy and not let California continue to take such advantage of the country, as my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), suggested. In this case, we have California divided against itself, the central valley against my district.

I must tell you, a long time ago, I tried not to have to deal with dairy policy because of problems in the past, but I can tell you also you can never quite satisfy dairy people in California because any kind of competition is a problem.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty apparent for those who have been listening that this is not a simple matter. I mean, dealing with national dairy policy by way of a suspension bill, with the presumption this is a very simple, noncontroversial item, at best, distorts the process.

Let me share with my colleagues that there is a regulation in place that covers the problems that have been raised here on the floor. The department has recently done that. That regulation is being challenged in court, and it is supposed to be heard tomorrow. So the opponents are choosing to bring the bill up today to undermine that opportunity for a family business to have an opportunity to expand their business.

I would suggest to my colleagues perhaps we should be supporting small producer-handlers across the country who would wish to expand their business, and those who have not chosen to follow that line, if it is so profitable, why do they not follow that line themselves? They, too, could become producer-handlers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman involved is a constituent of mine. I can take you to his farm anytime you like, in California.

One of his major farms is in my district, and all the farmers around him in California are supporting his position.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 4939 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.'' And this amendment gives it affirmative direction, in effect.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.''

The amendment includes an emergency designation and as such constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for the Chair's ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Very briefly, Mr. Rogers is the chairman of the Homeland Security

Subcommittee, and is doing a very fine job attempting to reorganize the direction of the country in regards to homeland security. In the processing of reorganizing, we brought 22 agencies together. When you bring bureaucracies together you have difficulty starting a direction that is right the first time. Mr. Rogers has recognized that.

There is a lot of money that has already been appropriated that is in the pipeline that can be applied to many of these priority challenges. Mr. Rogers has done a very fine job of prioritizing and pushing this agency. There is enough money in the pipeline to give the priorities the appropriate funding.

So I would argue very strongly for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I believe my colleagues know that the Appropriations Committee gives the highest priority to improving and extending oversight to money that is expended.

Indeed, I have personally spent a lot of time working with the Inspector General. We have added money in this bill to the Inspector General specifically to make sure oversight is increased and is very adequate. I am concerned, for example, about the money

that may be available even to east Texas as a result of this work. I intend to make sure that we do what is right in connection with our response to this issue. I would urge a ``no'' vote and appreciate my colleagues supporting that ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that my good friend, perhaps, has a prescription for success here, but I must say I must make my point of order.

Yes.

I certainly will.

Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: any amendment in a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. This amendment directly amends existing law.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I must say that I think you know me well; that my colleagues do as well. I feel very strongly about the rules of the House and I feel very strongly about the way we operate with each other. I must say I have regretted from time to time all the lessons learned when the former majority ran the House. But because of that experience, I must propound my point of order.

So, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.'' This proposal directly changes existing law.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.

This amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.

This amendment directly amends existing law.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentlewoman a question on my time.

Do you know how many additional speakers you may have?

Frankly I will be glad to yield to the two of them some of my time and I presume that you might want to use the last minute to close and we can close this up.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from the committee.

Mr. Chairman, in the time I have spent in and around Iraq I have seen a fabulous facility at Camp Doha that is meeting most of our challenges in the region. I see it developing significantly in the future. I don't see a need for a permanent facility in Iraq. I doubt there will even be a suggestion of that. On the other hand, I think the discussion was very healthy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, further, I look forward to working with both the gentlemen and am anxious to do everything we can to make this thing work as we deliver aid and support to the people in and around New Orleans.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I will take 30 seconds.

The House has expressed its will in many ways regarding LIHEAP. We are going to do what is right regarding that funding for 2006 and 2007. To send it back to committee would kill this bill.

The Members have done a fabulous job in a very bipartisan way producing a fine product. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on final passage and against the gentleman's motion.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I very much appreciate Mr. Thornberry bringing this matter to my attention.

As the gentleman and I discussed earlier, the territory we are talking about in Texas is just about the size of my district, in which you can put five eastern States. That is a huge territory.

I have been watching the problem with real interest, and there is no question that the House and our committee need to be responsive. We will do everything we can to work with you.

Well, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And he said it very well. We are putting together a unanimous consent agreement that will package these amendments to protect the rights of those Members who filed amendments. We are trying to expedite the process so we can complete this work tomorrow. In the meantime there are amendments that are going forward. And with that, I very much appreciate the gentleman's cooperation.

That is right. I anticipate that we will, and I am hopeful that that is the case. Under those circumstances, we will have no more votes tonight.

At the end of this part of the process, that is right. We will go to Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, regretfully, I must make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.

Section 17 of chapter 2 of the House Practice book states in part, ``It is not in order to strike or otherwise amend portions of a bill not yet read for amendment.''

And for that reason I would make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

If I could respond to the gentleman, the gentleman has been more than cooperative and I appreciate what he has to say.

From this gentleman's perspective, it is not our intention to take any additional amendments. We are very, very close to an agreement and I would hope that you and I can see our way through this long enough, a few minutes to make sure that we can get out at a reasonable time.

I always understand the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The amendment includes an emergency designation and as such, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.