Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 947 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. Speaker, House Resolution 947 provides for a structured rule, with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations, and waives all points of order against consideration of this bill, and provides for a motion to recommit with or without instructions.

This rule also makes in order several amendments brought forward to the Rules Committee, two of which are Democrat amendments, two are Republican, and two are bipartisan amendments, so the rule is fair in allowing a wide range of debate on issues that will be affecting nuclear technology, U.S. foreign policy and our strategic partnership between the world's two largest democracies, India and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, there was a time when I acted in a great many plays, one of which was the children's theater ``Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.'' And Willy Wonka has a song

that he sings in there called ``Pure Imagination,'' with the wonderful lyrics like ``there is no life I know that compares with pure imagination,'' which may work well for the stage or for a children's book after which it was based but not in the reality of our partnership between India and the United States.

There we must face reality, and the reality is India has had nuclear technology for four decades, they are a nuclear power, they have been in the possession of that technology since 1974 when they conducted their first nuclear test, they have never signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, nor do they have the international Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and since that time they have sought to increase the development of nuclear energy to support the needs of their large population.

In June of last year, President Bush announced an agreement with Prime Minister Singh of India on increasing cooperation on various fronts, including civilian energy production, which will hopefully ensure that India will join with the rest of the world and with us in the nonproliferation mainstream.

This underlying bill, H.R. 5682, builds upon those principles outlined in the President's agreement with India and grants the President certain prerogatives to waive restrictions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to facilitate transfers of civilian nuclear technology and materials, while specifically preserving the right of the Congress to ultimately approve or disapprove those waivers by requiring an unamendable joint resolution of approval by Congress in order for any of the formal detailed agreements to be entered into force.

In that regard, the Committee did well in protecting the rights and prerogatives of Congress. The bill also increases congressional oversight of nuclear cooperation with India by requiring detailed annual reports on India's activities.

Finally, the legislation requires the President, prior to requesting a waiver of the Atomic Energy Act prohibitions to certify to Congress very specific conditions that have been met by India, which would include: A credible plan for a separation of India's civilian and military facilities, increased safeguards and inspection of India's nuclear facilities, strengthened controls on India's export of nuclear technology, and an agreement that India will work with the United States towards the FMC treaty, which will also certify that the NSG has consensus agreement on the guideline modifications that will be enacted.

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member on the International Relations Committee said at the Rules Committee hearing yesterday on this bill, it is perhaps the single most important bill in this area of international relations that this Congress will have acted upon.

Our country has much to gain by working cooperatively with India in exchange for tighter controls than by not engaging them on these matters at all.

Without this agreement, India could move unilaterally into a nuclear realm without our Nation's consent or cooperation. Since September 11, 2001, India has demonstrated that it is an important partner with the United States in combating the war on terror. It is a nation of strategic and economic interests, and it is one in which we need to further our cooperation with India.

One of the most concise yet persuasive concepts for us to consider as well is that by facilitating civilian nuclear energy in India through cooperative agreements with our country, we will also have a significant influence on the international impact of oil, of emissions and jobs.

This is one of those bills, unlike some of the others we do, that does not expand the scope of government, it does not impose a mandate, has congressional authority, and if you are watching or reading one of the newspapers passed around this Hill today was supported by eight different veterans groups today.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5682 is a bipartisan bill. It enjoys a broad range of support. I urge the adoption of the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairwoman of the subcommittee, and one of the experts we have here in the House on international relations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, on the rule for the bill that was passed out by a bipartisan vote of 37-5, I reserve my time.

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

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

Just to illustrate what the Rules Committee actually did do, there were 10 amendments that were proposed to the Rules Committee, one withdrawn, two not germane. The one recently referred to was ruled not germane because it referred to all NPTs, not specifically this particular one. Of the seven that were remaining, six were actually made in order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and his presentation. I am very proud that I was able to go through this entire discussion and I hope to say ``nuclear'' correctly. It was the biggest fear I had.

I support the rule; I urge all those to support this rule and the consideration for H.R. 5682.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, as many here in the body know, I am an old high school history teacher. And not content simply to teach history in the classroom, I organized different programs for my students. Having worked in the State legislature, I came up with an internship program. So I took kids to the Utah legislature, where they worked for a week as we organized the program, their jobs, their housing, their supervision at night. I organized an oral history program for our school. I organized a Renaissance festival.

Tired of only kids in athletic programs getting scholarships, we raised

money for scholarships for kids who excelled in history. But it also required that not only did we put on a weekend festival but months of activity. Changing a small gym so it didn't look like a small gym, doing the costumes, writing the script, preparing and providing for a six-course meal that guaranteed there would always be leftovers.

As department chairman, I approved of all these projects, and I probably drove my fellow teachers into the ground trying to maintain all these activities. And the question you have to ask is, why did we do it? And it is a very simple answer.

Nothing ever stays static or constant. If you are not moving forward, you are moving backwards. And it is instinctive within the human being that they want to expand, do different things. Even since coming to Congress, I am doing the same thing: I have associated among the programs what I think was a very academic program of study and visiting in the Washington, D.C. area; so once again in the fall I will bring 20 to 30 kids from my district here where I will get to be the teacher again, taking them through Washington and the experience of Washington in conjunction with the closeup program.

Now, I mention that simply because what we do in our daily lives in trying to expand and grow and what I did as a teacher is the same thing government does. I do not blame bureaucrats for trying to expand their programs. That is the instinct and nature of mankind.

In the 1930s and again in the 1960s, the Federal Government expanded all sorts of programs to solve problems. Legitimate. It was good. The question that has to be asked is, what happens once those problems of 40 or 50 or 70 years ago are solved? Do we then eliminate the program or do the programs do the same thing I did as a history teacher, trying to find new things to do, more things to do as you are trying to expand the scope and responsibility of your task at hand?

And that is exactly what does happen. We never eliminate programs. We simply add to them, which is why today we have 342 economic development programs, 130 programs serving people with disabilities, 130 programs for at-risk youth, 90 programs for early childhood development, 75 programs for international education, 72 programs dedicated to assuring safe water, 50 programs for homeless assistance, 45 Federal agencies conducting Federal criminal investigations, 40 separate employment and training programs, 28 rural development programs, 27 teen pregnancy programs, 26 K-12 grant programs, 23 agencies providing aid to former Soviet republics, 19 programs fighting substance abuse, 17 rural water and wastewater programs, 17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements, 12 food safety programs, 11 principal statistics agencies, and four overlapping land management agencies.

Why do we do that? Simply because that is the nature of the beast. How do we solve that? Well, we review those. A Federal review, according to one report from the Heritage Foundation, found that 38 percent of all the programs that are run by the Federal Government fail to meet their core needs, the reason for which they are in existence.

So how do we solve that? How do we review that? How do we do that in a safe and fair manner? Well, we had the experience going through the BRAC process of trying to come up with independent agencies, taking the politics out of the issue, and looking at some kind of clear, concise criteria and evaluating where we were and what we should do and need in the future.

Representative Tiahrt and Representative Brady have introduced legislation to advance that same process with Federal programs. And so they will look at those programs in bills that will be before the House later this week with four specific recommendations or four specific parts which will make them effective:

Number one, they are bipartisan programs that will try to take political wrangling out of the equation. Number two, they will look at every program with a clear and concise criteria, including the constitutionality of that program in the first place. Number three, they will review all programs. And, number four, they will have a legislative process which will expedite the process of review and consideration.

Now, once again I do not blame the Federal Government or the bureaucracy of the Federal Government for its ability to expand. That I think is common. That is native practice. What we have to do as a Congress is realize if we do not like that expansion, it is our responsibility to make sure that that expansion is put in check. And these two bills are a perfect way of doing it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the unused time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from Idaho's having started this process in talking about this particular issue. And I am also looking forward to hearing from my good friend and colleague from New Jersey who will be talking about the 10th amendment in a moment as well. For, indeed, it is one of those central issues that we need to remind ourselves at all times.

In the Federalist No. 32, Hamilton tried to persuade people to ratify the Constitution, and the question was, Would this new government with which we now function have too much power? Hamilton wrote that ``I am persuaded that the sense of people, the extreme hazard of provoking the resentments of the State governments, and a conviction of the utility and necessity of local administrations for local purposes would be a complete barrier against the oppressive use of such a power'' by the national government. He went on to say that ``I affirm that under the plan of the convention,'' which he was referring to the Constitution of the United States, the States ``would retain that authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of'' the proposed ``Constitution.''

Now, in recent times we have strayed slightly from that philosophy. We have in this country today the idea that federalism is not when the central government simply graciously allows the States to do this or that, that it is not that the States are simply another form of administration or level of government. Federalism is when the people of the States set limits on the central government.

It is true that in the name of States' rights that sometimes harm has been done to individuals. One must remember that the idea of the Constitution, of balancing power between the national and State governments, had one purpose and one purpose only, and that was to ensure individual liberties. And when any branch of government, whether it be States or the Federal Government, harms those individual liberties, they are doing an assumption and they are moving boldly from the concept and the process that was originally intended to be there.

Sometimes we forget that back then when the Constitution was established the idea of States' rights or federalism was a given to our Founding Fathers, that those people who wanted to centralize powers were the ones on the defensive at all times and that it was clearly understood that the Bill of Rights, when it was passed, was the way of the States to bind the Federal Government to stay out of certain areas as in ``Congress shall make no law,'' et cetera, et cetera.

The only way to preserve civil liberty, then, is for government to check

its own power, government counteracting government. And the only way of checking power is to disperse that power and to divide it. The Federal Government will, even though it is against their basic interest, always have to learn to check itself. That is the purpose of federalism. That is the reason there are States and national government. That is why we are here week after week, speech after speech, in some ways trying to pick on issues and prod a conscience to realize the real purpose of federalism has the goal of preserving individual liberty and that when we do that, we are doing good, and that for some reason for the national government, the Federal Government, we here in Washington, if we really want to do well for people, if we want to protect people and their rights, we have to learn to try to limit our own power.

That was the goal of the 10th amendment, and it is the goal of this caucus to try to reemphasize all the time that for the rights of people and to preserve people and to help people, the national government has to lose power and share and balance that power with the States.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will be looking forward to the comments of my good colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the opportunity of being here to talk about Mr. Conaway's piece of legislation dealing with the Constitution.

In Mack v. The United States, Justice Scalia said, ``The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns,'' that is the national and State government, ``and among the branches of government,'' the executive, legislative, and judicial, ``precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crises of the day.''

The Founding Fathers also understood this when they were trying to sell the Constitution originally. Madison wrote in Federalist 45 that ``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined'' and those to the States are ``numerous and indefinite. Those we were supposed to deal with were the external objects like war, peace, negotiations, foreign commerce. The States were supposed to deal with everything which affected the ordinary course of affairs, concerns the lives and liberties and properties of the people, internal order, improvement of prosperity of the States.

So why don't we really do that today? It is not because we are deliberately trying to trample upon the concepts of the Constitution. It is not something that is vicious. It is something that we simply do not do because we tend to base our actions on the traditions of what we have always done, rather than the principles of what we ought to do.

So enter Mr. Conaway and his resolution. Why should we do it? Well, maybe if we did read that document more often we would not follow the traditions we have always done instead of the principles we ought to do. It does not happen by itself.

I was a poly sci major. Three of my children are. None of us were ever required to actually look at the document itself. When I taught AP government classes, I required our classes to read the document every year. It took a week to just go through it going at a fast clip.

But none of my kids were ever required to replicate that experience when they were in college, even if they were poly sci majors. My kids did know at that time what the Gitlow decision in the 1920s did to impact the 14th amendment in the 1950s. They did know the answers that I am repeatedly asked, like how often are congressman up for reelection or which Senator is supposed to represent our part of the State of Utah or when you go down to the Senate Chamber that was restored, why are there 11 chairs instead of nine?

They understand the concept of the Supreme Court's declaring things unconstitutional. It is not written in the document itself. It is a precedent that was established 15 years after the document was written. Jefferson always thought the legislative branch should be the one doing that job. Washington, and he was there when this thing was written, always thought the executive should declare things unconstitutional, and that was the purpose of the veto. In fact, the first six Presidents of the United States only vetoed items for constitutional issues.

I always ask my students if the Constitution allows you a guaranteed right of a secret ballot. And when they say, yes, I say that is a unique concept, especially since it was not popular only until 100 years after the Constitution was actually written. Why else would George Washington be able to buy a round of drinks for all the people that voted for him for the House of Burgess? Or when Thomas Nast draws his cartoons and there is this round globe there, what is that? In fact, it took a while to realize that was the ballot box of the 1800s. It was clear you got your ballots from the political parties. They were color coded; so everyone knew how you voted publicly. And, in fact, in New York one year, they even perfumed the ballots in case you were color blind so you could at least smell the proper ballot to cast.

It is fitting and proper that we and staff read the Constitution. Why? Well, maybe we will start asking the right questions or maybe it is just the right thing to do. If the Boy Scouts of America can insist that every kid wanting to get an Eagle has to read the Constitution first, if it is good enough for a 13-year-old kid, it ought to be good enough for us and for our staffs.

In fact, we should thank Mr. Conaway for making it an easy resolution. He is simply asking us to read the document. He could have made it tougher by asking us to understand it at the same time.

Maybe it would even allow us to rein in the size and growth of the Federal Government because, as PJ O'Rourke very clearly said, ``The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. Speaker, Aristotle once said that, ``All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.''

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor one of those responsible for educating the next generation of Americans. His name is Chris Brown, who is a principal of Corinne Elementary School in Box Elder County, Utah. Chris is a 2006 recipient of the Huntsman Award for Excellence in Education.

Now in its 14th year, this award was created by one of Utah's businessmen to honor his father who was a teacher. It nominates up to 500 teachers every year. The winner is chosen by a panel of their peers, as well as business and community leaders. They are remarkable people.

Chris Brown originally planned on getting an MBA, but his wife encouraged him to become an educator, and as she said, he ``just fell in love with it.'' He earned a bachelor of arts and bachelor of science degree from Utah State, and then he taught social studies at Bear River Middle School for 6 years before going on to become a principal now at his fourth elementary school.

Chris's focus has been on the students, and it goes beyond the school grounds. Every summer he visits every student who attends Corinne Elementary School to understand their home environment, to reach a friendship with their families, as well as to set goals for the upcoming year. He works hard to ensure that children from all walks of life are provided with the best educational experience.

Chris's wife Sharon, who is also an elementary school principal, says, that to Chris, everything about his job is being with the students. He feels an administrative position should give him time to be closer to students. He is in the classroom every day. He teaches social skills to his students every year. He leaves home between 4 and 5 in the morning, very seldom gets back before 7 at night, unless his wife creates some kind of fit, and he goes to work early and stays late so that he can do his administrative duties at that time and has time for the kids during the day.

He is kind of leader who is always trying to find some kind of positive interaction with his students. He sees them in the classroom often. He believes if the students see him in the classroom, they will know what they are doing is important. Every Monday and Tuesday he is in the classroom visiting every one of them, teaching social skills that would be expected of them.

On Wednesdays he meets with the teachers and the literary teams discussing each student's needs. He wants them to know how to read and gives teachers and aides ideas that fit into the student's ability, not some one-size-fits-all program. On Friday the students come to Chris's office to pass off their spelling words so that they have a positive interaction with the principal.

Mr. Brown makes sure that everyone stays focused on the most important issue, which is the kids. When a growing class size met his school and was problematic, he reduced the number by creating an additional third class which he himself taught.

At his current school he can be seen on the playground kicking soccer balls with his students at recess. In fact, one parent said, the whole second grade lives for PE with Mr. Brown. She overheard her son Daniel tell a home-schooled neighbor, ``You have to go back to school so you can have PE with Mr. Brown.''

Chris and his wife Sharon were both brilliant, student-oriented classroom teachers. I know, I team-taught with Sharon. They both have taken the same commitment to kids to the dark side of administration. Chris Brown has gone above and beyond the call of duty. Each student under his care knows that he truly cares about them and that he values them.

His commitment to the students demonstrates the quality of leader and teacher that he is. It is right that he has been recognized with this award by his peers, because he does education right. And, besides, Chris Brown still did the best audience belly dance we ever had at our Renaissance Festival.

It is an honor to recognize Mr. Brown. It is an honor to present him to you as someone who does his job in education right.

Mr. Speaker, one of my top five movies of all time was the 1968 cult classic, the original Producers. And, of course, as you know, that was the story of a Broadway producer who tried to find the worst play possible to produce a Broadway flop, and unfortunately it turned into a smash hit. And there is this wonderful scene where the producer Max Bialystock looks at the audience in the movie and says, ``I chose the wrong play, the wrong director, the wrong actor. Where did I go right?''

Well, to me the Max Bialystock of government, the Supreme Court, sometimes does the same thing, as their best laid plans and correct principles end up in something simply messed up. As my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, spoke a moment ago, this week will be the 1- year anniversary of the Kelo decision. After years of harping and praying and hoping the Supreme Court would actually take the

right concept and respect States rights, to respect the 10th amendment, they did it for the first time and once again got it wrong. For in their respect for the process, the majority of the Court forgot the constitutional principle involved.

We have talked, as the Constitutional Caucus, a great deal about the concept of federalism. Federalism is not the same thing as States rights. Federalism is the idea of a balance between the national and State governments solely for the purpose of protecting individual liberty and individual property. States rights is decisions and powers being made at the State level, which usually produces the proper result, but every once in a while has a history of abuse of power.

This particular situation, the Kelo decision, is one of those, where one of our good States in New England, both the local government and State decided to use eminent domain to take property from individuals not for the public good, but for economic development, a government abuse of property rights for the sake of money.

Fortunately, the dissenters of the Supreme Court clearly understood it. In reading the words of the dissent on the Kelo situation, they said, ``If such `economic development' takings are for a `public use,' any taking is, and the Court has erased the public use clause from our Constitution.'' Further, he said, ``The takings clause also prohibits the government from taking property except `for public use.' Were it otherwise, the takings clause would either be meaningless or empty.''

It was appropriate for this body, immediately after that decision, to pass both the resolution and the law condemning those decisions. It is also appropriate at the 1-year anniversary that we once again understand and review the significance of that concept of personal property rights.

The Supreme Court recently made a decision this week dealing with wetlands cases. We are talking, as well as the Senate, about the concept of death taxes. Both of those have at their core the understanding of the significance and importance of personal property rights. It is right and proper for us at the dedication of this anniversary of this infamous decision on Kelo to once again restate and reunderstand our purpose and the purpose of this government, which is to protect personal property.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here and I wish to address the first of the four points that Mr. Cole presented when he introduced this particular rule.

I, like the gentlewoman from California who just spoke, and those of us who were elected for the first time in the last two cycles, was not here for the 1998 debate and piece of legislation passed by 360 of our Members and signed by President Clinton which outlined our foreign policy objectives with Iraq; nor was I here for what I was told was the 17-hour debate on the vote that authorized use of force in Iraq.

Those two, in my opinion, should have been the definitive debate and vote on what our common policy would be as we move forward.

What I would like to talk to you about now is what I find most compelling, and that is the legal rationale for what we are doing in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq violated 17 U.N. resolutions, three of which demanded use of force for the violation of those. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had violated the treaty he signed with the United States. His forces were shooting at American servicemen. He put a bounty on the head of every American airman that could be brought to him. He had offered a cash bonus to every family of a suicide bomber who would blow up either an Israeli or an American at the time.

When a foreign country violates its treaty with us and shoots at our servicemen, that is a legal justification for our actions. In fact, it is odd enough that we probably have a greater legal justification for this war than any other conflict with which this country has been involved in the last 50 years.

In Korea, we went in after one U.N. resolution, not 17.

In Vietnam, we made it a national priority because of a treaty we had, not with Vietnam but with an ally, France.

We bombed Serbia and went into Bosnia, not because of a legal pretext or compelling national interest, but because our European allies asked us to assist them with their particular issue.

The quarantine during the Cuban missile crisis was an aggressive act of war that was condemned by the U.N. Secretary General and protested in dozens of cities throughout the world, but was, in my mind, not a legal act but a right act of President Kennedy.

In Iraq, what we are doing is both legal and it is right.

Every war we have had has been littered with protests. Historians tell us in the Revolutionary War a third of Americans were opposed to it and a third were indifferent.

The War of 1812, Mr. McGovern's State tried to secede from the Union.

In the Civil War, we had the greatest riots proportionately we have ever had in this country, and the Governor of New York inflammatorily said President Lincoln's goal was to kill all of the Irish.

In the Spanish American War, the Speaker of the House postwar resigned in protest.

In World War I, the Secretary of State prewar resigned in protest.

Only World War II has been atypical in those concepts of what we had.

As a history teacher, I see mass amounts of parallels with what we are doing now and what has happened in history. I don't have the time to go into any of those.

What I simply hope is for this House and this Nation is that we don't have the tunnel vision of short-term policy and we do not reject the lessons of history that will help us understand what should be the definition of our common potential future and policy towards Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate joining the majority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri, as well as the chairman of the Constitution Caucus, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey. For several weeks now we have tried to come before this body and talk about issues in which the Federal Government in its effort to be helpful has actually caused greater harm than good.

We have talked about the significance of sunset reviews, reviewing administrative decisions, mandates, States that would put on specific pieces of legislation that would help solve some of those problems. Again we come before you today, and I am grateful to be able to talk with these good gentlemen about once again the Federal Government, in an effort to be helpful, not malicious but helpful, tipping the balance of power with the net result that people are harmed, not by design, but that is the way that has happened.

Consent decrees, which shift the horizontal balance of power, have had the net effect of actually harming individuals. It is something that is a phenomenon that every State has experienced. Federal consent decrees are enforced in all 50 States, which end with judges running prisons, schools, welfare agencies, health care systems and on and on, usually on decisions that are based upon the advice of the advocates who brought original lawsuits in the first place.

It has been mentioned there have been a couple of Supreme Court decisions that have talked about these phenomena. The case of Jenkins v. Missouri is one of those great ones in which the Kansas City school district was taken over by a Federal judge. In an effort to try to improve the school system, not only did they use the executive authority to control hires and fires as well as curriculum, they assumed the legislative authority by actually advancing a property tax on the citizens of Kansas City, Missouri, in an effort to try to improve the education system. At least at that time the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 decision that they had gone too far.

That kind of usurpation of other authorities does not actually produce the better result. In the case that Mr. Garrett spoke about, Frew v. Hawkins in 2004, the Supreme Court once again said this can lead to the Federal court's oversight programs for long periods of time, even when there is no violation of the law still in effect.

Now what does this do for individuals? Let me give you a couple of examples. In a west coast city, they recently entered into a 5-year consent, actually in 2001 they went to a 5-year consent decree, in which certain practices would be done by the police department of this particular city. They recently conducted an independent review on how they had done in compliance with the consent decree.

The consent decree had said that every time a police officer uses nondeadly force such as perhaps twisting an arm of a suspect to handcuff him, the captain or above has to write a report of the incident within 14 days. There was a 94 percent compliance with that provision, but not enough to satisfy the consent decree.

The police commissioner was supposed to report within 45 days the quarterly discipline report. He actually took 15 days longer than that and was once again out of compliance. The department took 21 days rather than 7 days to send in its audit report to the Inspector General and was therefore out of compliance.

In fact, it would be possible to comply with all the decisions of this consent decree if the police department actually hired more personnel to keep the paperwork going. In fact, that is exactly what they did. They did hire more personnel to do the paperwork that was necessary to fulfill the details of the consent decree.

One article in the National Review talks about how the city's police department and their supervisors would meet to discuss the issues of the police department, and their topics of conversation tend to go almost universally to how to fulfill the provisions of the consent decree.

If I could quote from one article, they said for more than 2\1/2\ hours they gathered captains, sergeants lieutenants, and detectives spoke of nothing but processing the paperwork. Not a single word was uttered about reducing crime or otherwise how to improve the quality of life of people in the area in which they serve. The supervisor who attended this meeting simply called the process pathetic.

Oddly enough in the report of how they were doing in fulfilling their consent decree, it also mentioned that what the city needed were more personnel on the street and more supervisor oversight for the officers in the field, which oddly enough, in one of those ironies of life, they could have done had they not spent their money to hire the personnel to do the paperwork for the consent decree.

In New York City, they have had, since 1974, a consent decree mandating bilingual education in some of the city schools that has now been going on for 30 years, well past the original intent of it, even though the parents do not want to participate in this particular program.

Another west coast city was issued a consent decree in 1991 for their school districts, again claiming there were too few experienced teachers. Again the court stepped in increasing the taxes of these individuals by $11 million a year, and now, 15 years later, finally, the judge declared herself satisfied and declined to extend this decree for yet another 5 years.

The problem with consent decrees is very simple. Once entered into, those who are subject to those decrees have no recourse. There is no balance, there is no kind of protective area in which to go, in which case in that particular situation it is why the majority whip has asked us to introduce this piece of legislation to put a time limit on consent decrees.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 849 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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.

House Resolution 849 provides for a structured rule with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides for one motion to recommit.

This rule also makes in order, as a structured rule, every amendment brought forward to the Rules Committee, so by anyone's standard this resolution would be designated as being very fair.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, H.R. 5521, funds the legislative branch of our Federal Government, including Congress, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Visitor Center, the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, and the Government Accountability Office.

As one wise Member of our body said, the $3 million provided in this bill to operate the legislative branch agencies under the jurisdiction of the House seem straightforward and fiscally responsible. I think if we overlooked this appropriations bill, which was passed in a bipartisan way, the two words you would say are an increase close to the cost-of-living adjustment and always less than what was requested. We requested a fiscally responsible bill.

For example, the overall budget is $230 million less than the President's budget. The House of Representatives is funded at $19 million less than the budget request. The Capitol Police gets $12 million more than last year, but $36 million below the request. The CBO is $1 million more than last year, but $1

million less than the request. The Architect's Office is $5 million more, but $114 million below the request. The Library of Congress is $15 million more than last year, but $18 million below the request. The GPO is $9 million more, but $21 million below the request. The Government Accountability Office is $10 million more than last year, but $14 million below the request.

There are a number of other changes made within the bill that I think are also positive. One of the changes will be for the Members' allowances. If they are unspent, they will be used to reduce the budget deficit. For someone who has regularly returned back at least 10 to 20 percent of my budget allocation, it is nice to know that it is also going to a worthy cause.

In addition, this bill provides provisions for increased congressional oversight and accountability on the completion of the much-anticipated Capitol Visitor Center, as well as some very specific report language and an amendment that dealt also with the Architect's Office and the Government Accountability Office until the new Architect is provided.

The underlying bill provides for full funding of staff COLAs and transit benefits, it bans smoking in the Rayburn cafeteria, and I understand on page 35 it says that the gentleman from Massachusetts will voluntarily give me his salary for the next year, or until my personal debt has been retired, whichever comes first, which will be the year.

It also provides for 50 new investigators in the General Accounting Office to conduct increased oversight on government contracts issued in the wake of hurricane devastation in the gulf coast as well as in Iraq.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, I think this underlying bill is fiscally responsible, provides modest increases in the essential legislative branch functions, but still provides less in almost every major category than the President's budget requested. So I urge adoption of this rule and its underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Massachusetts, I will appreciate his check, and I look forward to passing this particular bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 835 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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.

House Resolution 835 provides for a closed rule with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources, waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides for one motion to recommit.

This rule allows this body to, once again, consider important legislation which is a key component of moving our Nation further along towards greater energy independence.

H.R. 5429, the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act is appropriately titled. It highlights the fact that the United States has within its borders vast untapped natural energy resources which have been locked away largely because of surreal political rhetoric battles, not based on reality, and it highlights the fact that developing this energy would provide many new jobs to our national economy and support our existing domestic economy.

We drive. We use plastics. Our agriculture uses fertilizers. 90 percent of our food is trucked to us. This is indeed talking about our economic health.

I know in the rhetoric that will take place there will be some emotional consideration that will happen. But I think also in the rhetoric, we will find several facts that will emerge.

Fact number one is there is oil in this area. The U.S. Geological Survey, our own researchers have stated with the probability that is higher than any of the pollsters who will be using our campaigns will say, that there is a minimum of 4.2 billion barrels and a mean factor of 8 billion barrels of oil. They have clearly stated this is the largest on-shore source of petroleum we have in the United States. If this were the only source of energy that we were using, my good friend, Mr. Hastings' State, could go for 29 years of energy needs in his State of Florida just with this source alone. My State uses far less air conditioning. We could go for 218 years just from this source alone.

A second fact that will come through. The purpose of this land is for oil exploration. When I first came here, there was a campaign to try and discredit drilling up in this area. They showed pictures of mountains, lush conifers, forests, lakes, meadows. It was a good PR campaign. It would have been a perfect PR campaign if it was true. They were actually using pictures in this area.

Secretary Norton said in the congressional committee in March of 2003, this is a coastal plain. It is called a coastal plain because it is a plain. There are no mountains, there are no deep water lakes, there are no trout streams. The only trout you will find in this area is frozen.

When Jimmy Carter and the Democrat-controlled legislature of Congress at the time created the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area the size of South Carolina. They also created the section known as 10/02. That is not ANWR.

When we were having 10 percent inflation and 10 percent unemployment at the same time, they created an area the size of the State of Delaware if you include the water for the purpose of oil exploration. It was stated at the time that this is where our future energy supply would come. Well, the future is now.

What we are talking about is a million and a half acres, the size of Delaware, with a displacement potential of around 2,000 acres to capture the energy in this particular area. That is roughly the size from the Capitol down to the Air and Space Museum on the lawn, out of an area the size of the State of Delaware. Mathematically, that comes to about .13 percent of the land that is available. Those are like finger clippings that we are talking about.

Fact number three: The locals who live on this land, who know the land and who love the land, are almost in unanimous support of this proposition.

Fact number four: When we created the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and this 10/02 section for oil exploration, we also made other decisions that increased our oil dependence on foreign sources, specifically from countries who do not like to play nice. What we have done by doing that is limit our diplomatic options. We have limited our independence. We have limited our freedom of action, and the only way to reverse that is to by creating clear oil independence, and that is an important step to do it.

So, for 11 times since 1995, we have passed in this body with a bipartisan vote of support drilling in this 10/02 section of land, and that was when the price of gas was cheap. We are now coming together for a 12th time with, once again, I hope bipartisan support to pass this effort. After all, it took Jacob 12 times to produce Joseph. I am convinced that we today on our 12th try will produce something as noble as that.

Now, there are some reasons for some people who do not want to do this. I consider it somewhat of an attitude issue. Sometimes we oversimplify our life. We think of the world as either black and white, yes or no, right or wrong, left or right, and do not recognize the shades of differences that are in between.

What our constituents want us to do is to reach across the aisle and in a bipartisan way try and solve an energy problem, understanding there are

shades. There is not one right or wrong answer, and understanding also there is no silver bullet to solve our energy needs. Jed Clampett will not go out there, shooting at some food, and up through the ground will come a bubbling crude.

We need conservation efforts. It is good. It should be encouraged, but that alone will not solve our problems. We need alternate energy sources. It is good. It should be encouraged. That alone will not solve our problems. We need oil exploration in this country. It is good. It should be encouraged. That alone will not solve our problems. But if we do not do the oil exploration, there is no hope of ever satisfying our problems. It has to be part of the equation.

There are some people who will also oversimplify the fact of saying you cannot have energy exploration and environmental protection. That is another attitude situation there because indeed you can have both. We have produced the technology to accomplish that. What used to take 60 acres to produce can now be done in 6 acres.

The simple fact is God has given us the resources to solve our problem. He has also given us the intellect to come up with the technology to solve our problem. Now what we must do is move forward in both areas to solve our problem, rather than sitting back and cursing the darkness.

When I first came here, there was a concerted effort to send e-mails to legislators, congressmen, in an effort to try and say not to do any kind of drilling up in this area set aside for that drilling purposes. I am perhaps different than my predecessor because I called those form e-mails back, and I just talked to many of them, realizing many of them had absolutely no clue about this area or what it was doing.

I remember specifically talking to a woman in Centerville, and in the course of the conversation saying that the people who live in this area and know it and who love this land are almost unanimously in favor of it, and her response was simply: Of course, they are. They do not know what is best for them.

It is that elitist, paternalistic attitude that has frustrated our efforts to solve this particular problem. It is now time for us to learn from our mistakes in the past and move forward and at long last do it with this particular legislation.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule. I urge adoption of the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just in deference to the Rules Committee defending their actions note that there was only one amendment that was sent as a potential amendment to this rule, and that was nongermane. It is very difficult to put amendments in order that have never been submitted to the Rules Committee in the first place.

Madam Speaker, with that, maybe even to verify that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for the purpose of talking about, once again, this area set aside by the Carter administration for future oil exploration, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for 2\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Madam Speaker, I am always sometimes amazed or reminded by our friends from the oil- or energy-consuming States that don't understand the size of those in the West.

It is true that ANWR is a small percentage of Alaska, but I would remind you that the wildlife refuge of ANWR is still the size of South Carolina. The 1002 land we are talking about, which is not ANWR, which was set aside for exploration, is the size of Delaware; and that is still significant in that process.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I don't want to try and change any kind of factual data, especially from my good friends from the Pacific Northwest, but actually this is the 12th, not the 13th time we have voted on this issue.

And, unfortunately, the Dulles Airport is actually five times bigger than the area we are talking about drilling. That is 11,000 acres. This is only 2,000 acres.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman also from the Pacific Northwest from the State of Washington (Miss McMorris).

Miss McMORRIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 5429. America deserves and needs American energy, and this legislation is an important step in achieving that.

The American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act would open, as we have heard, just 2,000 acres of nearly 20 million acres. If it were a football field, it would be equivalent to the size of a postage stamp. If it were the front page of the New York Times, it would be equivalent to the size of a lower case letter ``a.'' This leaves 99 percent of the land in its natural condition.

However, these 2,000 acres would recover 10.4 billion barrels, more than double the proven reserves of Texas, increasing America's total proven reserves by almost 50 percent.

This legislation is even more important in lessening our dependence on foreign oil and establishing a safe domestic supply that will entirely go to Americans. No longer should we rely on oil from countries that are not necessarily friendly or democratic. In fact, ANWR has the possibility of delivering an amount of oil equal to the amount we import from Saudi Arabia. A strong domestic energy supply, both oil and renewable, is vital to our economic and national security.

Right now, we face the challenge of high oil demand. To meet that demand, we need to establish a supply to meet it. Energy is important to Americans. Fifty years ago, America was an exporter of oil. A lot has changed, and today, we import over 60 percent of our oil. Yet since the 1950s, little has been done to prepare for our country's current or future energy needs.

When it comes to energy, we need a U.S.-based system that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation. Just as we brought the best minds and innovative companies together to put a man on the moon, we need a national organized effort to explore ANWR in an environmentally safe manner. Twenty-first century technology and advanced engineering now exists that allow us to explore for oil and natural gas with minimal impact on the surrounding environment.

Our energy policy must include a broad mix of options: From clean coal and natural gas to nuclear energy and hydroelectric power, to wind power and solar power to biodiesel. Drilling in ANWR is just one component of this comprehensive strategy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

MR. HERGER. Madam Speaker, my constituents in northern California are paying some of the highest gas prices in America. While prices continue to rise, ironically, the single-most promising untapped source of American oil in gas, ironically, remains off-limits to production.

This restriction does nothing to protect the environment. It simply ensures that Americans will continue to rely on foreign sources of oil. None of these foreign countries share our commitment to the environment, and many even have ties to terrorists. Madam Speaker, America has the most stringent environmental laws in the world, and we have the most advanced technology ever invented. This legislation combines our commitment to the environment with state-of-the-art technology to produce a commonsense plan for a secure energy future.

I urge support of the rule and for H.R. 5429.

Madam Speaker, I would like to make just a couple of points in closing. One of the issues that was brought up at the last moment was on a potential court challenge based on a potential 90-10 demand by the State of Alaska rather than 50-50 in the bill. Such an issue is a question. However, on a separate piece of legislation in a separate court system, the Federal court has rejected the 90-10 argument, so even if there is anything, 50-50 will be the reality of it. That is the precedent that has already been established.

The gentleman from Colorado, who was speaking towards the end, talked about the need to diversify, diversify on his agricultural endeavors, diversify on what we are doing with our energy needs, and I agree totally.

As I said earlier, it is important, it is sufficient that there is not one sole silver bullet to solve our energy needs. We need conservation programs. We need alternative energy programs. We also need to drill the oil that is available in the United States to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It is true that we cannot solve our energy problems if we do not do that other leg of the situation.

It is important that we can do this also in an environmentally sensitive way. Once again, don't take my word for it, but once again the Energy Department, during the Clinton administration, in their Report on Environmental Benefits of Advanced Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Technology, established an entire chapter to the fact that our technology has advanced to the time where we can do this production and maintain environmental sensitivity at the same time.

No, let me just finish. I apologize. Let me finish, if I may.

That was in 1999. In the year 2000, once again, the Argonne National Laboratory study dealing with an area just 80 miles from the proposed drilling site, once again, concluded there were no impacts on any wildlife species that have ever been documented in that particular area.

We are not dealing with the wildlife refuge, the so-called pristine area. That has already been set aside, as well as 100 million acres of other pristine area within Alaska and the Lower 48. But this ANWR, the wilderness refuge, is still the size of the State of South Carolina, which will not be impacted.

What we are talking about is potential drilling in the 1002 lands, the size of the State of Delaware, that was set aside by the minority party when they were in power back in the 1980s as an area for future exploration. That was its purpose. That was its goal.

We are asking that simply to fulfill the purpose of this particular land and do it in the proper way, and do it in a way that will be smaller than Dulles. Actually it is more like the size of Reagan Airport, which is far less encompassing than the Dulles Airport.

We can do this. We need to do this. We need to move this country forward.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 5429 pursuant to House Resolution 835, the Speaker may postpone further proceedings on a motion to recommit as though under clause 8(a)(1)(A) of rule XX.

Finishing my time here, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary procedures that my good friend from Florida knows and does extremely well here. It is true, that was part of the amendment deemed nongermane to the issue at hand. And, once again, I think the precedent is there that that problem is solved and is a moot issue.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would urge our support of this rule, I would urge our support for the 12th and final time of passing this needed piece of legislation as a significant part of our energy independence in this country.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a joy to be able to join you here on the floor tonight and hear the report from the gentleman from Georgia, which clearly illustrates that we have done much good in recent days here in this Congress, and to outline what we will be doing that is very positive in the coming weeks when we return.

I also wish to be able to at this time piggyback on the comments of my good friend from New Jersey, who is talking about some of the issues we have and the overall approach to funding that we have here in Congress.

I would like, if I could, to focus my comments on a few things that we have in relationship between States and the Federal Government with money.

A former majority leader of this House once said that if you want to get out of the trap, sometimes you have to let go of the cheese. Well, in the relationship we have between Federal and State governments, sometimes we have to let go of the cheese and emphasize what I think the gentleman from New Jersey was saying, the Tenth Amendment.

In the 1860s, flush with money from heavy protectionist tariffs, the United States for the first time passed the Morrill Act which, was a significant grant of federal money to a State for a specific purpose, in that case Land Grant Colleges, which have done a great job, I have one in my State, my kids went to it, it is great.

But a century later, in the 1960s, that changed somewhat, as the Federal Government started dangling money out and States, cash starved, accepted that money. What happened, like any good addict, once the States were hooked on the money, they could not let go. And the Federal Government, as any good supplier, as soon as they were hooked, started changing the rules of the game with mandates, with strings, with attachments to those programs.

I don't find anyone even wrong or evil in this process. The Federal Government has all sorts of people coming to us with problems they want help on, and we as a people simply want to help.

The States, I spent 16 years in the legislature of a State, are trying to build services without extended costs to the States, and that federal match hanging out there is extremely tempting.

But what we find eventually down the line is the Federal Government has

a budget we would like to control in some way, and the States are hooked on the money we keep giving to them, with the fear if they lose the money, they will also lose control of the programs, which they don't have right now in the first place.

David Walker wrote a book called The Rebirth of Federalism, and in it he said from the period of 1964 to 1980 there was something that he called creeping conditionalism that came into this country. As he wrote, ``There was a perennial Congressional tendency to impose strings and the more recent habit of adding regulations and mandates. The tendency even among block grants was and is to acquire conditions.'' We can see that in some of the programs like Safe Streets, CETA and CDBG.

In addition to that, there is a cost that is developed by the States for this Federal programming help. For example, in his book he also talks about the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1986, which now impose estimated costs of $2 billion to $3 billion annually on public water systems. That is money that must be raised by local taxpayers to pay for mandates and requirements of the Federal Government on this program, that was originally supposed to be a sharing concept.

The Education For the Handicapped Act, passed in 1968, now averages $500 million annually of additional costs to State and local government. It has been estimated, he said, from 1983 to 1990, additional mandates that the Federal Government imposed upon State and local governments, somewhere between $8 and $13 billion in additional costs. Which simply means, as the old adage says, the only thing that is worse than an unfunded mandate is actually a funded mandate.

Now, is there blame to go around? Yes, on both our sides. Blame on the Federal Government because we become too involved in too many projects in a kind-hearted effort to try and help people. There is also blame for the State governments, who take this too much, become too entrapped and need these programs and these funds to continue on. And though both of us are unhappy with the situation, we keep lumbering on with the same concept and the same program. Both of us, the Federal and State governments, find ourselves in a trap, and both of us, if we are going to improve, have got to some day realize we have to let go of the cheese.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support of the rule for the Energy and Water Appropriations Act.

I wish to commend Chairman Hobson and the subcommittee for crafting in a very bipartisan way an excellent bill. This bill does contain funding for water and resource-related projects in my district and my State, and I think that it is very wise of them, but it also deals with one specific issue I wish to address this evening.

Chairman Hobson has recognized in this bill the importance of having a very strong nuclear power program in the United States. As Americans continue to face the increasing costs of energy, nuclear power is an important part of our overall energy policy. Chairman Hobson has craftily connected the concept of interim storage with reprocessing of fuel rods, recognizing that spent fuel rods really are not spent at all. The overwhelming majority of the rod is still fuel that is available, and through reprocessing of the spent fuel rods, we can not only create greater energy, but we will significantly reduce the problem of a waste stream.

During last year's debate, I engaged Chairman Hobson on the floor in a colloquy on this issue. He said at that time: ``I do not see any reason for the Secretary to consider making a private site, or a site on tribal land, into a DOE site for interim storage. My intent is for the Secretary to evaluate storage options at existing DOE sites.''

I appreciate very much that his subcommittee has taken these words to heart and has crafted in this bill a process which ensures that the interim storage of nuclear waste will be done in conjunction with willing partners.

Specifically in this bill, there are some additional criteria for interim storage in the report language. It talks about the department, and it says they will ``explore consolidation of spent fuel within States with high volumes of spent fuel. The Department should conduct a voluntary, competitive process to select interim storage sites.''

The key word here obviously is the word ``voluntary.'' Chairman Hobson added this important phrase and clearly understands that it is far wiser and better to voluntarily work with States than to try to impose mandates on States. That not only protects the rights and positions of States in our Federal State, but it is clearly a wiser policy of choice.

This bill reinforces the statements and the commitments that the chairman has made on this issue, this year, last year and repeatedly in other venues, and I appreciate him doing that. State and local officials in my State, military in my State, environmental groups and citizens in my State are encouraged with these particular words.

Once again, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Hobson and the entire subcommittee, both sides of the aisle, for protecting what I consider to be in an important way the citizens of my State and ensuring that State and local interests are paramount in this particular process. I think you have done a fine job, and I am proud to speak in favor of this particular bill and especially the rule which will put it before us.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 818 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. Speaker, the resolution provides for an open rule on H.R. 5386, the Interior Appropriations Act for 2007. It provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for certain legislative provisions which are specified under the text of the rule.

For purposes of the amendment, the rule provides for priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to stand and introduce this rule as well as the underlying legislation. I appreciate the hard work and the hard choices that have been done by the subcommittee members, specifically Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks, as well as the full committee under the leadership of Chairman Lewis and many others who have played a essential role in putting this budget together, which actually comes in at $145 million less than last year's enacted levels.

This important measure provides funding for the entire Department of Interior, except for the Bureau of Reclamation, for the U.S. Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture, for the Indian Health Service within the Health and Human Services Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other programs.

At the same time, this measure provides for a moderate increase over the President's proposed budget for the Forest Service, for the National Park Service, EPA, Environmental programs and management.

This budget provides for $5.9 billion to programs for Native Americans, including three new health centers in underfunded and depressed areas. It provides for a fully-funded National Fire Plan, eliminating duplications, which will result in the stopping of wildfires from getting out of control and becoming more expensive and damaging to both people, as well as wildlife and the environment.

There is land acquisition, which has been reduced to $60 million for in-holding, which is significant and important to do, but it is significant that it does not add inventory to our public land policies that are above and beyond what we can already afford.

There is one particular note of significance to me I wish to address, that this bill provides $228 million for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program at the Department of Interior. This figure is $30 million above what the President requested, and I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Taylor, ranking member Dicks and the entire committee in providing the restoration of funds. However, it is still below the $332 million that was provided for in last year's budget, and significantly below the authorized level of $350 million, which would be there today.

If one were to draw a line from Montana through New Mexico on the map, everything west of that line has 57 percent ownership by the Federal Government. Everything east of the line is 4 percent ownership by the Federal Government.

When the western States, which I live in one, entered this country under their enabling acts, there were legal commitments that were made, that in the 1950s the Federal Government unilaterally changed and since that time have been repeatedly changing. In fact, there are several amendments that have been threatened to be only the floor today which would increase that change in commitment.

No one who does not live in that area understands the significance of Federal ownership of that particular land. Chairman Taylor though, having a significant amount of Forest Service land in his district, is one of those that is empathetic to this situation, and we are appreciative of all his efforts in this particular area. I wish the administration were the same. In dealing at one time with an administrative official, he asked me why I was so concerned about all this Federal land; it was simply useless land and no one lived there anyway.

It has to be realized that half of the West is essentially tied up in Federal lands and is controlled by it. Payment in lieu of taxes is not charity, it is simply rent on land that is due to compensate for economic problems created by the Federal Government, created by Federal Government actions, and in contradiction to the deals that were made when these States originally came into the Union.

The Department of Interior took the concept of payment in lieu of taxes from the BLM as an effort, in their words, ``to ensure appropriate emphasis,'' and that it would be a benefit accrued to both Congress, the Department, BLM and to the counties of the West as well.

Since that time, that has not been the case. In fact, in each of the last 2 years, the administration and the OMB have actually cut this particular program, only to have it restored by Congress, which once again I thank Chairman Taylor, his committee and his staff for their efforts in that area.

In like contrast though, it is unusual that even though the overall funding for the Interior Department has been

around 7 percent over the past 5 years, if my math is correct, the Department of Interior's administrative budget has increased 100 percent in that same time, from $64 million to $118 million today.

While I may disagree with this portion of the bill, we will be joining with other western Congressmen later on today to try to present an amendment through regular order that will address this one particular issue.

I am appreciative once again to Chairman Taylor and the ranking member from the State of Washington who have been understanding of this situation, empathetic of this situation, and very helpful to us, as we move forward to try and find some kind of redress with this particular situation.

Mr. Speaker, while I have a few disagreements obviously that I have just stated, overall that is only one aspect of this important underlying bill that will be presented by this rule. We will be trying to address that agreement at some other time.

Still, the overwhelming majority of this bill is very positive and it does move us forward, and it was a responsible result of a lot of bipartisan work done on the part of this particular subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reserve one more time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) to try to correct an inaccuracy that was stated a little bit earlier.

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

I find these opportunities exhilarating to say the least. There are a couple of things that I would like to point out.

We have spent a great deal of time talking about one of the provisions that is in this bill that deals with the drilling of natural gas, which is far different than the drilling of oil would be. It seems in Congress sometimes that we talk so much about the problem of heating in winter. We appropriate billions of dollars for the LIHEAP program so that Federal money can go directly through an individual over to the utility companies, when it would seem logical or at least rational to try to explore in some way a way of increasing the availability so that all people have to pay less for heat for their homes in the winter, and that instead of trying to subsidize the poor, we try to solve the problem at its root.

It is difficult to sometimes be here and have people criticize the lack of natural energy, wanting to consume more without producing more, at the same time being critical of any efforts to actually increase that consumption possibility. Not only is this an issue that hits individuals in trying to heat their homes, but it also hits businesses, much of which runs on natural gas.

I have farmers in my constituency that cannot fertilize this year because there is not enough fertilizer being produced and because natural gas becomes a critical element in its production and its distribution form. Industries are not being able to operate because of that.

I do, though, want to thank Mr. Hastings for the very end talking about increasing fund because this is, after all, a funding bill. I do want to also talk about two issues that were raised in defense of the bill and defense of the position of the Rules Committee.

Section 2 of the resolution says that it is essential to allow the House to have the so-called deeming resolution, which means we deemed the budget resolution which was passed by the House last night as having force and effect until we can get a conference report. It is essential to move that forward if there is to be any kind of parameters and discussion over the debate. If we do reject this rule and subsequent rules on appropriations items which do that, we simply have the net effect of this body of postponing any rational discussion in a logical and determined way of any of the appropriations items.

We might as well just dust off the old omnibus bill, because that will be the end result of not moving forward in a rational and logical approach on each and every one of these budget areas. I don't think that is the appropriate tact that we as a body wish to take.

Secondly, I want to talk also about a couple of other provisions that have been criticized. In section 2 clause b it says: ``A provision changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriations bill.'' Over in rule 4 it says, ``A bill or joint resolution carrying an appropriations may not be reported by a committee not having jurisdiction to report the appropriations.''

What it basically means is that appropriation bills are supposed to be appropriating, authorizing bills should be for authorizing, and the function of the Rules Committee is to try and make sure those distinctions are clear. To be honest, we sometimes will fudge on that and put authorization language in an appropriation bill if the authorizing committee agrees and does not object. In this particular situation, the Rules Committee did what it was supposed to do and simply said, where an authorizer objects to a provision in an appropriation bill they will have the opportunity to come forward and do just that.

One of the speakers said we pulled out certain amendments, or that we did not allow certain amendments to be in the bill. No, they are still in the bill. We did allow an authorizer to come in and exercise his right under the rules to protest that authorization language in an appropriation bill, and then we will deal with that issue when the time comes.

I am telling you that what I think the Rules Committee has done here with this open rule, so that any amendment that actually deals with the appropriation side is legitimate, is to protect the process as written in our rules. And if appropriators wish to be authorizers and authorizers wish to be appropriators, maybe they should look at trying to rearrange their committee schedules to accommodate that process.

This rule is a good rule because it follows the rules, it defends the process that we have, and it moves us forward in the debate. I feel comfortable with that. I feel comfortable with much of the actual appropriations in this particular bill.

I did have times when I was given a kind of start. As an old teacher, every time they said the word education my ears perked up, because I was wondering where education fits into this bill. And then I realized we are debating a whole lot of other issues not necessarily related to this appropriations process.

I do want to say something that is extremely personal to me as it deals with potential taxes. The last time my party did not control the House and the Senate and the Presidency, the solution to our budget situation was the largest tax increase in the history of this country, and it started out with the concept of taxing the rich. I was a school teacher. My taxes increased at a greater percentage and with a greater dollar amount than ever in my lifetime. My wife had just taken a part- time job that year. Everything she made in that part-time job went to pay for the tax increase, supposedly on the rich.

I guess I should be grateful to the Congress that at that time, as a schoolteacher, I was labeled as one of the rich in this country. But that was the reality. And if indeed we never go back to those days again, I will be grateful and I will be happy.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule. This is a good bill. It will be talked about at length today, and I am sure will be amended in appropriate ways as time goes on, but it is still a good bill and I urge the adoption of the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 818--Rule for H.R. 5386 the Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY2007

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

``Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in

order without intervention of any point of order and before

any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of

Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to

amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for

a division of the question in the committee of the whole or

in the House.

Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as

follows:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and, with gratitude that we are done at this point, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, the other maps were in green and red. Mine is in blue, and my chart is to show in the blue the total amount of each State's land that is now combined and controlled by the Federal Government.

You can see an obvious change in States here that in the West who, when they were admitted to the States, were admitted with certain conditions for the yielding of that State land. It was unilaterally changed by the Federal Government in the 1950s, and in the 1970s when the PILT program came into effect, it was somehow to try and offset the impact of those particular changes.

The Department of the Interior said 2 years ago when they took over the funding of the PILT issue they would ensure appropriate emphasis. It has not happened to this date.

This amendment would actually do that by putting PILT up to what was appropriated last year and to where the Senate purports to be at the end of this year's session.

Let me just say that in the short time I have to finish, the Washington Post has endorsed this amendment. You may not have known that because they do not know it either, but last year, they wrote the Federal Government is the largest landowner in Washington, DC, and since this land cannot be taxed, the Federal Government is the principal contributor to the district's chronic fiscal imbalance.

That is our point for those of us in the West exactly. This is the problem that we have, and PILT is the one that tries to change that economic impact to mitigate the losses that we indeed have. The Department of the Interior has a commitment to make sure PILT was fully funded. All we are trying to do with this amendment is to help the Department of the Interior to maintain their commitments.

Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce you to Gene, who is a third-generation sugar beet farmer. That is a root crop that can't grow in wetlands. Nonetheless, his sugar beet farm was ruled by the Federal Government as a wetland. The reason it was a wetland was because the creek was connected to his farm by way of an irrigation ditch with a pipe in it. The water to his wetland went through an irrigation pipe which he allowed to pool so the higher end of his farm could actually be irrigated the same way. In our district, 8 days of irrigation is one of the criteria for a wetland.

I don't believe that those who actually wrote the Clean Water Act intended an irrigation pipe to be considered one of the navigable waterways of the United States, but the act is written so loosely and the interpretation by bureaucrats on the administrative side has been so perverse that indeed those kinds of decisions have been made in reality.

The SWANCC decision by the courts simply said enough is enough. We need to bring some element of logic, write some rules that actually are the intention of this particular act. So Gene, when he took the irrigation pipe away and the water dried up, was still threatened with fines because he had interrupted the navigable waterways of the United States. And when he and his wife for medical needs tried to use the only asset that they had, which was their farm, and they tried to sell it for their needs and their family needs, the value of their farm was shot, because this is now farmlands. They were forced to sell their property for one-quarter of the value of the exact neighboring farm with the same kind of crops on the same road.

What we are doing with the Clean Water Act, as it is being interpreted, is hurting people. We are taking their property rights away without any kind of compensation from the Federal Government and forcing them to suffer. We are forcing them to try and prove to the person who made the original accusation that his accusation was inaccurate.

For example, when the water actually dried up on his property, the person who made this request, who made this declaration it was water land, simply said we are in a drought cycle; we have to wait until we have a wet cycle in Utah to see if the water will return automatically by itself.

This is unfair to people. And this amendment, well-intentioned as it is, just like the law, well-intentioned as it is, in its practice hurts people. It hurts real people in the United States, and that is not why we are here.

I urge you to reject this amendment. Let the SWANCC decision go forward, so logical rules on how we deal with real people can be put into place.