Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, the poem below was written by poet and Capitol guide Albert Carey Caswell in honor of Gunnery Sergeant Angel Barcenas from Paramount, California. Gunnery Sgt. Barcenas admirably served our great nation on Marine One during the Clinton and Bush Administrations. In July 2006, he was wounded by an improvised explosive device in Iraq and had both of his legs amputated below the knee. He started walking again 3 months after his attack, crediting the professionals at Walter Reed for his quick recovery. In May 2007, fighting all odds, he led a two-mile motivational run through lower Manhattan with the Marine Corps, and New York firefighters and police. Gunnery Sgt. Barcenas is an American hero whose unwavering sense of duty and dedication should be an example for all Americans. I proudly submit the following into the Record.

Marine One

Marine One,

America's Son, . . . A Most Heroic One!

Who so bravely marched off to war, . . . to do what had to be

done!

Terminating Evil . . . as have all of our fine heroes, long

as time begun!

Lock and Load,

A True American Hero, Who So Lives By A Code . . .

A Marine's, Marine . . . a presence, a force upon the scene .

. . who'll make hearts explode . . .

So Very Bold!

From That Great Golden State,

As A Hero's Hero . . . our Lord God, would so create!

Strength In Honor, In awe at what we saw . . . as we so watch

you rebuild, with but your new gait!

I've got a life to live, for this Angel . . . Heaven can

wait!

Serving, Two Presidents . . .

Aboard Marine One, as has been your most honored residence .

. .

Bringing home a Hero, who gave his fine legs . . . as you too

would live that same page . . .

And still your courage weights, and has been getting greater

by the day!

Building, from where none lies left . . .

Rising up from the ashes, for no one will take your dreams .

. . for you are, America's Best!

As into a future, this our world . . . as an Earth Angel, you

shall bless . . .

On the ready, my fine son . . . you never rest!

As An Angel, here on earth . . . until, on the scene as an

Angel in The Angel of Our Lord you burst!

Teaching us all, about your fine character and courage first

. . . and of a human being's true fine worth!

Our True Fine Sum, Thy Kingdom Will Come . . . Someday, when

you leave this earth.

Someday, you shall shine . . . in our Lord's Sun!

Until then! Standing Guard, Standing Strong, Standing Hard .

. . for That's Who You Are!

That's What You Do . . . So Tried And True . . . As Angel,

Your Heart Takes Your Far!

Walking like Travolta, no walks like you! Running fast and

far . . . A Force, A Shining Star

On the road of life, where it all begins and ends . . .

Is the Greatest of all forces, which so burns bright until

times end . . . is but, The Heart Which sends . . .

As Angel, yours so emanates . . . from deep down within, your

soul is one of greatness . . . my fine friend!

For you are my Son, A Marine's Marine . . . You Are . . .

Marine One!

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate T. J. Lee Elementary School and the Irving Independent School District (IISD) Food Service Department for being awarded the coveted Gold School Award by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

T. J. Lee Elementary is the first school in Texas to receive this prestigious honor. As part of the USDA's HealthierUS School Challenge program, schools around the nation are awarded two levels of certification: Silver and Gold. IISD eagerly took on this challenge and assumed a leadership role to ensure that our students are being served healthy school meals in addition to providing nutrition education and a variety of physical activities. Given the variety of food available, particularly fast food and snacks in vending machines, the

students at T. J. Lee are taking steps toward a healthier future by making important nutrition choices at a young age.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating them for receiving this tremendous honor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation which imposes an 8 percent gross tax on all new mining claims made on Federal lands and will cause a significant reduction in domestic mineral production and future mining investments in the United States of America.

I do appreciate the lip service that the Democrat majority regularly pays to making America the top-ranked nation in the world on a number of fronts. However, after managing over what will surely rank as the least effective Congress in recent memory, I am surprised that there isn't more disappointment on their side of the aisle with this legislation because this bill fails to set new global standards for the highest tax on mining on the planet; it merely matches Germany's, which already holds the world record for the highest mining tax at 8 percent of gross receipts. Once again we see the new Democrat majority trying to equal what is done in the United Kingdom and across Europe, including Germany.

In the Committee on Natural Resources hearing held on this matter on October 2, James Cress testified: ``I am only aware of a single royalty that is as high as the royalty proposed in this bill, just one in my 20 years of practice. An 8 percent royalty would really be ruinous.''

I suppose that neither Mr. Cress nor anyone watching this debate should be surprised, though. In what will surely go down as the least- productive Congress in recent history, this new Democrat majority has failed for the first time since 1987 to even send a single appropriations bill to the President for his approval by this point in the year.

This is the same Democrat majority that recently set another record of dubious distinction, a record for the most legislative ``busy work'' with the least amount to show for it. Since the beginning of this Congress, Members of this House have voted on over 1,000 roll call votes with just barely a tenth of those bills having been signed into law.

And of the 106 bills that have actually made it to the President's desk, 46 named post offices, courthouses or roads; 44 bills were noncontroversial measures sponsored by Republicans or passed with overwhelming GOP support; and 14 bills extended preexisting public laws or laws passed during the Republican-led Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that with a track record as abysmal as this, the Democrat majority is eager to put just about anything on the floor in the hopes of claiming any kind of legislative victory. Unfortunately, the policies included in this legislation are quite simply wrong for America that will jeopardize the current and future domestic sourcing of minerals that are critical to our Nation's economic well-being and security.

In addition to imposing the world's highest royalty on mineral production, this legislation would also retroactively levy a 4 percent gross royalty on existing mines where business plans and investments have already been made without accounting for this after-the-fact cost. This provision, which is of doubtful legality but is doubtlessly unfair, is the legislative equivalent of one party changing the terms of a contract after it has already been signed. I believe that the Federal Government abusing its power to change the negotiated terms of these agreements is simply unfair, and I oppose it.

I also disagree with the inclusion of several provisions in this legislation that would empower political appointees to stop new mining projects even after these projects have met all applicable environmental and legal requirements.

No industry can or should be expected to operate with such regulatory uncertainty, and the net effect of all of these provisions will simply be to encourage companies to take their business overseas.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation that harms the domestic American mining industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. Speaker, you know, we hear it here again, every single member of the new Democrat majority talking about their desire to tax, a new tax of 8 percent on this industry which has been described as the final death nail which will disseminate the remnants of an already sadly diminished domestic mining industry, and here we go, tax them at 8 percent, put the death nail in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. Speaker, day after day we come down to the floor and we hear about all the new taxes, all the new rules and regulations, all the things that have to take place by this new Democrat majority, but I think we fail to recognize that what happens is that when you tax something, you get less of it. When you put more rules and regulations on something, less good things happen.

In this case, we are going to have an 8 percent tax on the industry; 4 percent tax on the new operations, 4 percent tax on the existing operations. The overwhelming indication that we have is that it will make us look more like Europe, and we are told that's a good thing, I guess.

The bottom line is that we spend a lot of time gnashing our teeth together trying to talk about jobs in country. Just yesterday, the Rules Committee, after we had done this bill, we had a trade adjustment assistance bill. We tried to bend over backwards, which some of it I do support, trying to make sure that those workers who have lost their jobs as a result of world competition in trade and manufacturing, that we do all we can do to help these employees who lost their job.

Yet the very next bill is this bill that literally will decimate workers' jobs in the West. I am sure what we will do is in a few years we will come back and say, oh, my gosh, we just can't compete. Let's now give them what we just did yesterday, trade adjustment assistance. It just keeps going on and on and on.

I suggested yesterday, will suggest today, let's not tax this. Let's not tax this industry for the benefit of the government. Let's let the industry be healthy. Let's let the industry compete globally. Let's let this industry provide those necessary and needed resources, precious metals and precious resources to the development and the benefit of the United States of America, including our United States military.

Let's not tax this at 8 percent so that we allow manufacturing not to have to go overseas to get those precious, hard metal products that they need to ensure that manufacturing is taken care

of in this country. Let's not tax this industry to where it decimates it, to where there are no jobs in this country, to where America has to seek these precious metals and hard metals overseas.

We believe that what you have got today is a circumstance where the new Democrat majority can't wait to tax this industry at 8 percent, which will see the industry go into demise. We think that is an obvious plan that they have had. They didn't just pull this out. This is something that they have had, been working on a long time.

The Republican Party opposes this new tax. We oppose the diminishment of the industry. We oppose what will eventually happen as a result of American manufacturers having to go overseas to seek new markets, many times countries which are not close friends and allies of the United States. We see a day when we will not only lose jobs but will be held hostage for the precious minerals that we need, which will provide not only our country the things it needs but perhaps the military and our industrial complex with the things that will keep America strong.

We oppose this bill. I believe that what you have heard today is not only Members state that equivocally, but we will continue to say to the Members who are listening to this argument, please vote ``no'' on the rule, and please vote ``no'' on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, we understand this meaningful reform that's going on, a new 8 percent tax on the industry. We get that. The Republican Party understands that there will be a loss of jobs, loss of manufacturing base in the United States of America. And we know that that's part of the meaningful reform that the new Democrat majority wants and expects. This is not a new subject: taxation, spending at record levels that are taking place by this new Congress, combined with an incredibly poor record on efficiency for the bills that will be signed into law.

That's why the President of the United States has issued his administrative policy from OMB that says they're not going to sign this bill; they're not going to sign this into law because of the loss of industry jobs, the lack of competitiveness that the United States of America will have with hard metals, and the high taxation that would be imposed that will kill the industry.

We get it. Perhaps that's meaningful reform to the Democrat Party. That's loss of jobs, lack of ability for America to be competitive with the world and high taxation. And that's not our idea of good reform.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to notify the gentlewoman from

California that I have no additional speakers at this time, and so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate not only the debate that's taken place today, but also your demeanor in this wise consideration. I appreciate the gentleman from New York very much.

Mr. Speaker, what we're debating here today is yet another opportunity for the new Democrat majority to raise taxes in this country, to put consumers at a disadvantage, and to raise more money for their Big Government plans and programs that they have.

New taxation is not something that is new to the Democrat Party. That's their mission: grow the size of government, to tax people.

What's interesting today is the debate that has taken place about the words ``meaningful reform'' that were necessary to justify the taxation that will take place.

The Republican Party opposes this bill. The Republican Party opposes new taxation. The Republican Party recognizes again today that we know that market forces will come into play yet again today, not only to further diminish this industry, which, by and large, is located in the west of our country, which means a loss of jobs in the west, which means that it will diminish, not only the few jobs that remain, but will make America in a less competitive circumstance as related to the marketplace of the world.

But what we've heard today that has been just very interesting were remarks by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) where he talked about his knowledge of what the manufacturing base of this country needs, and that is, many times, the hard minerals that are directly affected by what this bill will do.

Raising taxes means that there will be less opportunity for people to go and mine these operations because the cost efficiency as it relates to the world marketplace will not be available to those companies. So what will happen is there will be a new taxation, this 8 percent tax. There will be a diminishment of the mining industry in America, and then there will be those people who utilize those raw materials, they still have a need to produce the products which they need, which many times are not only in the best interest of the United States of America, but also to produce products that will help the United States military and our infrastructure who now will have to go overseas to do business with countries that are not exactly our closest of friends and buy their products.

So once again, what we see is a philosophy that is followed by the Democrat Party, not just the new majority of the Democratic Party, but an old philosophy that, let's go and find a way to reform an industry and to tax them out of existence, to lose jobs in this country to where we have to come down to the floor and beg for further government assistance to take care of people, and then we whine and moan about the jobs that have been lost overseas and how this had something to do with trade.

Well, Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, we had an opportunity, the gentleman, Mr. Dreier from California; the gentleman, Mr. Diaz-Balart from Florida; the gentleman, Mr. Hastings from Washington; and myself and we said, why don't we do something that would be proactive to keep jobs in this country. Like, let's not do things that would put us at a disadvantage. Like, let's do things like lower taxation, for instance, with depreciation policies, tax policies that would allow us to be on an even footing with other countries who we compete with.

That fell on deaf ears, Mr. Speaker. It fell on deaf ears because, really, what this is about is getting more money to run this Big Government policy that the new Democratic majority wants to put in place.

We recognize that what's happening is that at this time we have a log jam of all these bills as they try and get to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation with Republican Leader Boehner, immediately appoint conferees and move forward on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for 2008.

This week, a number of news publications, including the National Journal, reported that the Democrat leadership intends to play political games and to send a three-bill pile-up consisting of Labor- HHS, Defense and Veterans funding bills to President Bush so that they can try and leverage strong Republican support for the military and veterans funding to sneak a bloated Labor-HHS bill that proposes an 8 percent increase in spending over current funding past President Bush and this Congress. Once again, not just more taxation, more spending.

While the House Democrat leadership plays politics, however, our Nation's veterans are paying the price. The Senate has already done its work and appointed conferees for the Veterans appropriations bill. And for every day that House Democrats allow the veterans funding to languish without conferees for their own political advantage, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million that could be put to bear to help them for the intended reason why we're spending the money. That would be used for veterans housing, veterans health care, and other important veterans support activities.

The American Legion and the VFW have already made multiple requests, along with Republican Members from this House, urged Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Reid to end their PR campaign and begin work on this conference report for veterans funding. Unfortunately, it appears as though all these commonsense requests have fallen on deaf ears and our Nation's veterans are being forced to pay the price for continued Democrat partisanship and lack of leadership on this issue.

I ask all of my colleagues to support this motion to defeat the previous question so that we can put partisanship aside and move this important legislation forward without any further games or gimmicks. I know that this is a bold idea that hasn't yet been focused directly by Democrat pollsters or agreed to by moveon.org, but I think our veterans deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Randolph Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas for its innovation in water conservation. Roger Kiker, a civil engineer at the base, and his staff have saved taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars with their water conservation efforts. Their ingenuity in implementing an automatic meter reading (AMR) system and other infrastructure improvements have relieved some drought concerns in the San Antonio area, which relies solely on the Edwards Aquifer for water.

Mr. Kiker and the Randolph Air Force Base have proven to be leaders in water conservation and environmental protection. Randolph Air Force Base has reduced its water consumption by 6.1 percent and saved over 117,000,000 gallons of water this year by reusing water, planting drought tolerant landscaping, and fixing leaky meter infrastructure.

This week, Mr. Kiker and Randolph Air Force Base will receive a 2007 Presidential Award for Leadership in Federal Energy Management for water conservation. I commend them for their success in this project and hope others will follow suit in preserving our precious natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Leader, as you are aware, many Members of the California delegation are in California today as a result of the wildfires.

It was very important for them to go back home and be with their constituents. Over 1 million people have been left homeless and have been evacuated. There was a request made of the Speaker and of the majority leader to please postpone votes and not to have the vote today. Those requests have been made directly to the leadership, and I would like it if you could please address that issue at this time.

I thank the gentleman. I would like to resubmit a request to the gentleman now. I believe that this body is aware that last night we received a 293-page document that has not one cosponsor, is described as being the Senate's bill, not the House bill. We have not had an opportunity to go through the bill. The 24-hour rule evidently last night in Rules Committee was just completely obliterated.

You have a request, a collegial request, from the Republicans who are in this body who recognize and understand the importance of SCHIP. We also recognize we have until November 16 before that deadline approaches. Both you and I and every Member of this body understands that this body would never allow SCHIP to collapse.

I am respectfully asking on behalf of the minority and the collegiality of this body for you to please reconsider allowing us to end our business today and to come back and retake up this business on Tuesday, with not only a renewed spirit from the people who have gone to support the firefighters. You're right, they're not fighting the fire, but they do have a strong belief that what they have done is the right thing; and they would wish to participate fully in their constitutional duties. And I will re-ask the majority leader at this time from a collegial aspect.

I thank the distinguished majority leader.

In no way am I asking or are we seeking to shut down Congress. What we're attempting to do is to ask if the majority leader, from a collegial standpoint of understanding, that just as I came back to Texas to work to make sure that some 50,000 people from Katrina and that effort were taken care of in Dallas, Texas, where I literally helped spearhead our efforts, today there are approximately twice as many people who are displaced in California as there were by Katrina. And I believe it's honorable and respectful to ask that on behalf of my colleagues that we not take up this important legislation today, that we allow ourselves respectfully to adjourn and then come back on Tuesday, as we normally might, to handle this piece of legislation.

And I will respectfully ask that on behalf of the minority at this time to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of the rule because the rule contains a waiver of all points of order against the bill and its consideration and, therefore, is in violation of section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. Speaker, we make a point of order with great respect to this body. We're here to do business today. We've asked this body to please consider an adjournment because we have a lot of Members who are in California. We were denied that request.

We also believe this point of order should be heard because it's important that last night a 293-page bill was brought forth to the Rules Committee, which we received only 25 to 30 minutes before that meeting took place, I believe, in violation of the regular order for legislation that Speaker Pelosi has outlined for all Members of Congress, as well as the American people, a Congress working for all Americans.

And under regular order for legislation, it states: ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration.'' Mr. Speaker, that has not happened again today. Again today we find that the legislation not following regular order is presented to this House.

Last night, as we began the discussion in the Rules Committee, we found out this is not even a House bill. No

one took responsibility for the bill that was coming to the Rules Committee last night. Every person there said this is a Senate bill; this isn't a House bill.

And then we tried to discuss what was in that bill. I don't know what's in that bill. Sure, we've had some time today, but we have not digested all 293 pages. And, Mr. Speaker, we believe that what is happening here today is not only in violation of what we have seen, a Congress working for all Americans, but also the establishment of the way this House would run itself under regular order and for the best interest of all Members of Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, last Congress the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Rules thought it was so important to require at least 24 hours before voting on any rule that she authored a rules change, H. Res. 686, cosponsored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), senior members of the Rules Committee. The proposed change would have prohibited calling up a report by the Committee on Rules within 24 hours of presentation to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer my colleagues to H. Res. 686 of the 109th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I wasn't really surprised when the new Democrat majority didn't actually follow through on their commitments on the opening-day package. However, I just wonder what happened to the dedication of Democratic Members who once showed the rights of preserving those things which they think are good for Members to have time to know what the heck they're voting on.

And I believe today a 293-page bill with zero cosponsors, and even the gentleman who brought the bill to the Rules Committee last night said ``not my bill, it's the Senate's bill,'' I believe we should be careful what we are doing and allow 24 hours and follow the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, I did not hear you, but I object to the ruling on laying on the table the motion to recommit. I did not hear your words in that regard; and I object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 40th completely closed rule to be reported by the Rules Committee in the first session of the 110th Congress, a rule that fails even to provide the minority with a substitute amendment and to the underlying legislation that the minority did not receive until 7:30 p.m. last night.

Might I also add, perhaps the American public is sold on this, but there is not one cosponsor of this bill in this body. And when the bill was presented to the Rules Committee last night, no one even took credit for it. Those that brought the bill forward said, ``Not my bill, this is the Senate bill.'' An interesting twist of fate.

Mr. Speaker, once again, for the third time in as many months, I oppose the way this legislation has been brought to the floor without a single legislative markup. I oppose the fact that despite Speaker Pelosi's promise to run the most honest, open and transparent House in history, today we are being provided with a process and a product that is none of the above.

Mr. Speaker, what we do have is a bill that neither the Republican leadership nor the Republican members on the Energy and Commerce Committee nor the administration had any opportunity to participate in crafting.

What we do have is a process that has been politicized and mischaracterized over and over again by the new Democrat majority in the hopes if the same skewed numbers and faulty facts are repeated enough times, then somehow they must be true.

Last night in the Rules Committee, we learned that when it comes to playing by their own PAYGO rules, the Democrat majority wants to have things both ways. We learned that this majority only agrees with the facts presented by the Congressional Budget Office when it suits their needs. When the CBO estimates that the bill raises taxes enough to pay for the additional $35 billion in spending that it creates, they would be for it. However, when confronted by the fact that CBO estimates that this legislation falls 26 percent short of the often-repeated claim of covering 10 million children, all of a sudden the CBO's calculator is broken and their ability to estimate anything accurately is certainly put at dispute.

The CBO also estimates, as my good friend and colleague from Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess, points out in his testimony late last night in the Rules Committee, this legislation will move 2 million children who are already being covered by private health insurance into a Washington- based system that deliberately undercompensates physicians for their services by approximately 40 percent, creating a net loss for the overall quality of patient care.

What we do have is a process that for the third consecutive time still increases government spending and dislocates the private marketplace, diverting much-needed funds away from helping our Nation's poorest children.

One new bit of information which has been represented about this legislation is that it finally prevents undocumented workers and adults from receiving those funds intended to pay for the medical cost of children of the working poor.

Since we got this 293-page bill just a few hours ago, I will have to take the Democrats at their word. But if this is the case, it means that despite all of their protests to the contrary, and consistent with now-vindicated Republican criticisms, the first two SCHIP bills passed by the House did cover undocumented workers and adults.

I would like to congratulate Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the new Democrat leadership team for finally agreeing with what Republicans have been saying all along, because we all began at the same point, and that is, you can't have a fix if there's no problem to begin with. We knew there was a problem, and they finally admitted it in this new bill.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not here to oppose the idea of SCHIP. It was a Republican-controlled Congress that created SCHIP; and I support its original, true mission statement. But H.R. 3963 is yet another thinly camouflaged attempt at slowly siphoning Americans from insurance plans in the private market into a Washington-based, government-run, single- payer health care system.

Mr. Speaker, today we have failed to address one of the most serious issues facing our Nation, how to make the health insurance system more affordable and accessible for all Americans. So, most of all, I rise to oppose the Democrat leadership playing political games with children's health in order to score electoral points.

It is a well-known and often-cited axiom that ``success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.'' That statement is no more true than in Washington, D.C. today, where everyone clamors to be associated with success but sets new land-speed records in distancing themselves from responsibility.

You see, last night in the Rules Committee, we were told time and time again that the bill being brought forward by this rule is not a House product; it is a Senate compromise that we all just have to support. The chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good friend Mr. Dingell, reiterated the point over and over again to the committee in his testimony.

In fact, despite asking for one, I'm still unable to find one House Democrat willing to take responsibility for all the shortcomings of this bill. And if we can't find one Member of the House, much less a thousand, willing to take credit for this bill, then I guess if we're simply judging the bill a success or a failure, it's pretty obvious which category this falls into.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this completely closed rule that breaks every promise made in Speaker Pelosi's ``New Direction for America,'' and this politically motivated and ill- conceived legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party does support SCHIP. We do not support taking 2 million children that today are in private health insurance programs and moving them to the government, Washington-based/run health care program. That is where we offer our differences today on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

Mr. Speaker, if I could ask how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my wonderful friends on the other side that if they are serious about this bill maybe they would start by trying to negotiate with the administration, or by reaching across just 9 feet, as the gentleman from Texas said, Mr. Barton. Why not try? It's amazing what you would maybe get, maybe some bipartisan help.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Intelligence and Energy and Commerce Committees, the gentleman, Mr. Rogers.

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

Mr. Speaker, just so that the Members of Congress that are around understand this, that 10 million figure cannot be substantiated. As a matter of fact, the last bill had 7-some million. This new bill, 7.4. So for the Members that want to talk about 10 million, that's not truthful. That is just not true. CBO says it will serve 7.4 million people; about 10 percent will be adults, and 2 million children will go from private insurance into government-run Washington, D.C.-based health care.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Dr. Weldon.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the former member of the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation, that's called bipartisanship, with Republican Leader Boehner immediately appoint conferees to H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for 2008.

The American Legion and the VFW already have, along with multiple requests from Republican Members, including this Member of the House, urged both Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Reid to end their PR campaign and begin conference work on the Veterans appropriations bill. Unfortunately, it appears as though all these commonsense requests have fallen on deaf ears, and our Nation's veterans are being forced to pay the price for continued Democrat partisanship and lack of leadership on this issue.

I ask all of my colleagues to support this motion to defeat the previous question so that we can put the partisanship aside and move this very important legislation forward.

I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Carne C. Cunningham, a World War II veteran. He received his ensign commission in September 1943.

His military service began with his assignment to LST-291, a landing ship for tanks, where he served as the officer in charge of supplies in addition to his watch officer duties. On September 10, 1944, Carne was assigned as a division officer to a cargo personnel ship, the Auriga, where he served for the remainder of the war. He was involved in the invasion of Leyte, Lingayen Gulf, Luzon Island, the Philippine Islands, and Okinawa, where he witnessed the death and destruction of war.

World War II is known as the deadliest conflict in human history, taking the lives of over 70 million people. During this difficult time, our country stood united behind our brave servicemen and women who so willingly took to the battlefields to defend freedom and democracy. It is veterans like Carne that helped us emerge victorious from World War II and restore hope and humanity in a world that was shattered by the darkness of hatred and violence.

His patriotism, courage, and selflessness are an example of what make America great. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude for his service to this great Nation. May God bless all those he loved, and may I convey to them my sincerest condolences and the gratitude of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor James R. Clark, a World War II veteran. World War II was in progress when James decided to leave his position as the high school principal of Star City ISD in Arkansas. He realized his country needed him and enlisted with the Army Air Corps on November 3, 1942.

During his tenure at Aloe Army Base in Victoria, Texas, he taught cadets how to disassemble and reassemble machineguns while blindfolded and navigation before being relocated to headquarters. At headquarters, James was the only public relations writer and news photographer on base. After spending over 2 years at Aloe, he was relocated to California and was at Fort Ord when he was notified that would be going to Japan. Fortunately, the war ended before he was deployed for Japan and James was discharged on November 22, 1945.

World War II is known as the deadliest conflict in human history, taking the lives of over 70 million people. During this difficult time, our country stood united behind our brave servicemen and women who so willingly took to the battlefields to defend freedom and democracy. It is veterans like James that helped us emerge victorious from World War II and restore hope and humanity in a world that was shattered by the darkness of hatred and violence.

His patriotism, courage, and selflessness should be commended and his dedication to public service deserves our highest regard. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude for his service to this great Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of Dr. Parmer Richardson, a World War II veteran, and in honor of his patriotism and a life dedicated to service. He joined the United States Navy in the summer of 1941.

Though he spent most of his service as a radioman specializing in communications technology, he originally joined with the intent to become a pilot and was persuaded by a Navy recruiter who promised him flight training. He was sent to various areas in the United States as well as Canada and Mendora in the Philippines. After being discharged, Parmer began his 55-year dental practice.

World War II is known as the deadliest conflict in human history, taking the lives of over 70 million people. During this difficult time, our country stood united behind our brave service men and women who so willingly took to the battlefields to defend freedom and democracy. It is veterans like Parmer that helped us emerge victorious from World War II and restore hope and humanity in a world that was shattered by the darkness of hatred and violence.

He is survived by his wife, Jane Richardson, of Duncanville, TX. He will be remembered as a devoted family man, a lover of flying, and a proud veteran and American. His patriotism, courage, and selflessness are example of what make America great. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude for his service to this great Nation. May God bless all those he loved, and may I convey to them my sincerest condolences and the gratitude of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Robert M. Allen, a World War II veteran. He joined the United States Navy on December 7, 1940 and was assigned to a small seaplane protector, the U.S.S. Avocet (AVP-4).

Upon completion of signalman school, he returned to the Avocet in February 1942 and received orders to transfer to the Convoy Control Center in Algiers, Louisiana. For the next two years, Robert plied the Gulf, Caribbean, and the Atlantic, which were teeming with German U- boats. Fortunately, none of his ships or convoys were attacked. After devoting five years of dedicated service to the Navy, Robert was discharged on January 14, 1946.

World War II is known as the deadliest conflict in human history, taking the lives of over

70 million people. During this difficult time, our country stood united behind our brave servicemen and women who so willingly took to the battlefields to defend freedom and democracy. It is veterans like Robert that helped us emerge victorious from World War II and restore hope and humanity in a world that was shattered by the darkness of hatred and violence.

His patriotism, courage, and selflessness should be commended and his dedication to public service deserves our highest regard. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude for his service to this great Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Dr. William J. Lawhorn, a World War II veteran. In 1944, he enlisted in the Army Air Corps at the young age of 18.

His original intention was to become a pilot, but two weeks before he was due to enter flight school, it was shut down. Out of his squadron of 125, only eight were selected to remain in the Air Corps while the others were sent to the infantry. He went on to attend radio school and was assigned Kitchen Police duties.

World War II is known as the deadliest conflict in human history, taking the lives of over 70 million people. During this difficult time, our country stood united behind our brave servicemen and women who so willingly took to the battlefields to defend freedom and democracy. It is veterans like William that helped us emerge victorious from World War II and restore hope and humanity in a world that was shattered by the darkness of hatred and violence.

His patriotism, courage, and selflessness are examples of what make America great. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude for his service to this great Nation. May God bless all those he loved, and may I convey to them my sincerest condolences and the gratitude of the American people.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this structured rule and to a number of provisions included in the underlying provision in its current form. I oppose this legislation because it substitutes the deliberate and long-studied recommendation of well-trained Forest Service professionals with a purely political congressional action by designating 27,000 additional acres, which are land in the Forest Service today, as wilderness, beyond the Forest Service recommendation of 16,000 acres in southwestern Virginia's Jefferson National Forest.

This means that despite having spent millions of congressionally appropriated tax dollars and investing tens of thousands in on-the- ground Federal employee hours on studying this issue, the Democrat leadership will simply override the Forest Service's well-reasoned decision to force this additional acreage into wilderness status. This also, despite the fact that many of the areas proposed in this legislation do not meet the standards of the 1964 Wilderness Act, including roads, utility corridors, mountain biking areas, and a Federal Aviation Administration tower. These should not be considered within wilderness area, and yet, today, that's exactly what is happening.

Today's bill makes private landowners to the area vulnerable to the Jefferson National Forest Plan ultimate goal of obtaining all private lands within these expanded wilderness boundaries, including 722 total acres of outstanding privately held mineral rights.

What is even worse is that thousands of acres in this proposed wilderness area are at high risk for wildfire and require mechanical thinning for proper fire risk mitigation. Many of these areas are next to the small communities that will be placed at even greater risk of catastrophic wild fires if this land is not managed properly.

So even as the threat posed by wildfires to American communities all across this country is fresh on our minds, as we watch with great concern and sympathy the unbelievable damage these wildfires are inflicting on Southern California, nonetheless, the Democrat leadership of this House has decided that the best course of action is to extremely limit and outright prohibit commonsense reduction activities across this Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.

Besides the private land owners and homeowners adjacent to this land, other losers created by this legislation include a number of animal species covered by the Endangered Species Act, including bats and bears. Currently, several of the proposed wilderness areas added by this legislation are professionally managed to maintain threatened endangered and sensitive species habitat. By passing the legislation under this rule, Congress will be preventing the Forest Service from using the equipment that they need to comply with the Endangered Species Act.

This makes no sense, Mr. Speaker. It makes absolutely no sense why this new Democrat majority throws aside not only the expressed opportunities that the Forest Service have given us to understand proper management, but they will override professionals who have studied this and do this for a living.

Perhaps worst of all, Mr. Speaker, because this draconian ``wilderness'' designation prevents any road or trails from being improved in these areas, a number of our Nation's most vulnerable populations such as the elderly and disabled will be effectively prevented from accessing and enjoying this piece of America under this bill. It absolutely makes no sense, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sorry we're having to be on the floor today to take this position, because the Republican Party is in favor of our national parks, is in favor of people utilizing our national parks, and we view these areas as very historic areas that we want to preserve and make right and keep them.

Mr. Speaker, this is bad public policy. I oppose this structured rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California's words about the tragedies that are occurring. Not only for the past few days, but also, as always, anytime there's a wildfire, people who get in the way, the brave men and women of the National Park Service and others who go to help fight those fires, I know the Nation is at this time very focused on the lives and the property and the effort that is going on in California.

With great respect, I too, join the gentlewoman from California for expressing our sincere appreciation for the firefighters who are trying to battle and save the property and the lives in California.

Mr. Speaker, for perhaps the same reason that the gentlewoman from California has come down to join in this discussion today, perhaps with an opposite result, I, too, am down on the floor to talk about how wise management of our natural resources, of our Parks Service, is important. You don't have to go back really as far as Teddy Roosevelt to understand what Teddy Roosevelt saw, that this great Nation had the abundance of beautiful woodlands, hills, mountains, streams, the acreage included within that, the beautiful animals, the birds, the fish, the wolves that were a part of our landscape. And that's why national parks were created. National parks were created with an opportunity for the Federal Government to have a chance to allow people to come and see this great country, to see the beautiful country that we had.

As a young man growing up and scouting, I remember well the opportunity that I had to not only visit national parks, but a chance to get what is called the Forestry Merit Badge. And even back in 1965 or 1966, when I was receiving this badge, I remember, this is not the term that was used, best practices, but one has become used as a term of best practice and that is, wise management of our forests to not only sustain them, but to protect them, and to protect the animals and all that lives and counts on that forest surviving. We've learned these wise management techniques, not just in scouting to get the Forestry Merit Badge, but we have learned them through the years. We've learned that sometimes unwise management and doing things to our park system, in fact, caused more damage than it did good.

I remember back with the fires that we had in Yellowstone, how the National Park Service said just let it burn, it is a fire created by an act of God. But they really, as a result of that, learned that they had to learn a better practice to save millions of acres and millions of animals that could be destroyed.

Well, part of that best practice is what the National Park Service is attempting to do right now and has been attempting to do in this national park today. It is against their recommendation that politically we override the best practices, the best thoughts and ideas that people have who manage our park system, who do see the balance, who are there every day with the careful consideration.

By designating this area, an extensive amount of area, as wilderness, it means that arbitrarily, we're taking something that would never qualify under the intended statutes and add it in. I think this is unwise. This is how you do have problems. This is how you do have fires that burn out of control when you're not able to come in and protect the forest properly as a result of this designation. This is how you have problems when you're not able to take care of the endangered species that are in there and properly protect them, because it will have that wilderness designation.

And so with great respect for the same purpose that the gentlewoman from California came to notify us and to remember what America's paying attention to today, the wildfires in California, I would say we need that same sort of vision to avoid what could be in the time of drought or in the time of misdeed because of perhaps a lightning storm, something that's an unintended consequence, and that is to take this area and to move it into wilderness means that it will not receive or be able to receive the same kind of regular work that happens to protect these wilderness areas and national parks from destruction of a fire. I think it's a bad idea.

I think it's also a bad idea any time politicians in Washington, D.C. for political purposes decide to overrule common sense.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, as the entire country is focused upon California fires, the disasters that are occurring and the heroic efforts of the firefighters, the people who live in California are working together, community activities, the entire country has been called into action. And I'm sure every single one of us, as not only Members of Congress but just as proud Americans, want to respond in a way that is appropriate.

The gentleman who represents a vast area that is included within those wildfires is with us now. He's the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). I would like to yield him 10 minutes at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation with Republican Leader Boehner, immediately appoint conferees to H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill for 2008.

Yesterday a number of news publications, including Roll Call, reported that the Democrat leadership intends to hold off sending appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to serve as ``an extension of their successful public relations campaign on the State Children's Health Insurance Program.''

While the Democrat leadership plays politics on this issue, however, our Nation's veterans are paying the price. For every day that the Democrats allow the veterans funding bill to languish without conferees for their own political agenda, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million, which could be used for veterans health care, veterans housing, and other important support activities for veterans and their families.

I would like to repeat that. Every single day there is $18.5 million that is lost for our veterans and their families.

On October 18, the American Legion National Commander Marty J. Conaster, five national vice commanders, and all 55 Legion National Executive Committee members sent Speaker Pelosi a letter pleading with her to put partisanship aside and provide this funding now for our veterans and troops.

At this time, I will insert this letter into the Congressional Record.

The American Legion,

Indianapolis, IN, October 18, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: Today ends the Fall meeting of The

American Legion's National Executive Committee, at The

American Legion's National Headquarters in Indianapolis,

Indiana. The National Executive Committee consists of an

elected leader from each of The American Legion's 55

Departments (50 States, the District of Columbia and four

foreign countries). In accordance with The American Legion's

National Constitution and By-laws, the National Executive

Committee serves as The American Legion's governing body.

The National Commander Marty Conatser briefed The National

Executive Committee on an array of issues to include the

status of the VA budget for FY 2008. The fiscal activities of

the 110th Congress--the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution, the

Budget Resolution for FY 2008, and the passage of the

Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs and Related Agencies

Appropriations for FY 2008 were reviewed.

However, in trying to grasp why such a bipartisan bill,

which passed overwhelmingly in both chambers, still hasn't

moved in over a month is rather difficult, especially since

the President has already said he would not veto the bill,

even though it exceeds his recommendations. Understanding why

the appropriations process has come to a complete halt is

difficult. What is preventing the appointment of conferees,

the Conference Committee, or passage of a Conference Report?

We are now in the new fiscal year with no idea when the Mil

Con-VA appropriations will be passed. If history repeats

itself, this standoff may last well into the second quarter

of the fiscal year. This uncertainty is disturbing to not

only The American Legion and other veterans' and military

service organizations, but to every veteran who is dependent

on VA for timely access to quality health care, earned

benefits, and other services provided by a grateful nation.

Madam Speaker, the newest generation of wartime veterans

are reporting to VA medical facilities every day as troops

are returning from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some

will be determined to be service-connected disabled because

of medical conditions incurred or aggravated while on active-

duty. Others may very well have invisible scars that need

attention as soon as possible. As VA welcomes new patients,

the existing patient population cannot be ignored nor should

their health care be rationed due to limited available

resources. There are veterans dependent on VA as their

life-support system.

The American Legion represents 2.6 million wartime

veterans, but also speaks for the 24 million veterans of the

United States Armed Forces and their families.

Please continue the appropriations process--name conferees,

convene the Conference Committee, and pass the Conference

Report.

Sincerely,

Marty Conatser, National Commander; Thomas L. Burns, Jr.

(DE), National Vice Commander; Randall A. Fisher (KY),

National Vice Commander; David A. Korth (WI), National

Vice Commander; James L. Van Horn (AK), National

Executive Committeeman; Ross Rogers (AK), National

Executive Committeeman; Peggy G. Dettori (AK), National

Vice Commander; Donald Hayden (MN), National Vice

Commander; Floyd W. Turner (AL), National Executive

Committeeman; Julius Maklary (AZ), National Executive

Committeeman; James W. Hackney (CA), National Executive

Committeeman.

Jeff Luginbuel (CO), National Executive Committeeman;

John J. Jackson (DE), National Executive Committeeman;

Robert J. Proctor (FL), National Executive

Committeeman; Ray Hendrix (GA), National Executive

Committeeman; Cleve Rice (ID), National Executive

Committeeman; W. Darrell Hansel (IN), National

Executive Committeeman; David O. Warnken (KS), National

Executive Committeeman; Charles D. Aucoin (LA),

National Executive Committeeman; Dr. Gordon B. Browning

(MD), National Executive Committeeman; Richard W.

Anderson (CT), National Executive Committeeman; Paul H.

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

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