Dennis Cardoza

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree totally with one statement that Mr. Dreier, my colleague and friend from California, said, and that is that Mr. Bishop often comes up with brilliant ideas. Today we are allowing two of those brilliant ideas to be debated on the floor. With regard to some of the other issues that were raised, I already read into the Record the fact that the committee has certified that there are no earmarks in this bill. Mr. Bishop says, well, there's a potential to have grants later on down the road. My understanding of grants is that they come from the administration, not from Congress. And if we start talking about every grant that is given by the Federal Government or the U.S. Government to the myriad of people who receive them throughout this country, that is a process that Congress has set up for a number of years. That has never before been the definition of an earmark, to my knowledge. So if that's the new definition of earmarks, that's news to me. But I don't believe, based on the committee's certification, what I have heard, the testimony I have heard, there are any earmarks in this bill. That is what has been reported in the report, and I believe that to be the case. Secondly, as I have previously stated as well, this bill is a voluntary measure where landowners have the absolute right to opt in or out. And so I can't see where there is coercion. There is agreement among the delegations in the affected regions, our House colleagues. I believe that this is a good measure and it should go forward, and I would encourage my colleagues to support the rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. I would like to just get through a few of my points, if I may. The gentleman also brought up the issue of whether or not this bill has any effect on eminent domain. And I can tell you that there is absolutely no authority in H.R. 1528 for the National Park Service to take land by eminent domain, nor does the Service have any authority in local zoning issues that might affect national scenic trails. Further, H.R. 1528 explicitly states that ``the United States does not acquire for trail any land or interest in land without the consent of the owner.'' In fact, this bill is an opt-in bill; you have to agree to have your land put into this act and used in this way. The second part of the gentleman's statement with regard to earmarks, I'd like to just refer the gentleman to the committee report, page 7, the earmark statement. And in the committee report it states that ``H.R. 1528 does not contain any congressional earmarks.'' This is an authorization bill, not an appropriation bill. Further, the report states that it does not contain any limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.'' It states that very clearly in the committee report. Finally, the bill does allow two private groups that manage the trail currently, and this is the entire point of the bill, to receive Federal technical assistance. And that is in the way of educational experience or technical assistance to manage the trail, not resources to manage the trail. So, I would say that there is no earmark whatsoever in this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 940.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his debate today. I disagree vehemently that his rendition of the earmark process is an accurate one. I don't believe that last Congress's rules on earmarks were stricter and more transparent than this Congress's. In fact, I believe that the country knows that the earmark process has gotten more transparent under the Democrats and that we have far fewer earmarks in the current process than we had previously. I think voters spoke about that in the last election. I would just go on to say, Madam Speaker, that 40 years ago, the National Trails System Act was established to provide a system of trails for outdoor recreation and the enjoyment of scenic, historic, and naturally significant areas. H.R. 1528 adheres to these very long- established values. It ensures that the sweeping, natural landscapes across New England remain protected and untouched so they may be enjoyed by our children and grandchildren for years to come. It deserves strong support by all Members on the floor today, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question. The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier of California is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 940 Offered by Mr. Dreier of California At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; (2) the amendment printed in section 4, if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as follows: Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following: (1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding the following at the end: ``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to an order of the House, unless the Majority Leader or his designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective item in such list) or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional Record prior to its consideration.''. (2) Clause 9(c) of rule XXI is amended to read as follows: ``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph (a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with respect to the proposition. The question of consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiation the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.''.

Mr. CARDOZA. The gentleman has his own time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, the gentleman did make that offer in Rules. However, it should be noted that Mr. Bishop is the ranking member of his subcommittee. He had an opportunity to amend this bill in committee. He did not choose to offer but one amendment in committee, is my understanding, and then he came to the Rules Committee at the last minute with seven amendments. The Rules Committee is allowing two amendments to be offered on the floor today. I think that's a fair hearing for the gentleman.

Mr. CARDOZA. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his kind words that he opened his statement with. He mentioned throughout the statement that we might not be here if we were under suspension. I feel that under suspension of the rules, we would not be able to hear any of the debate that Mr. Bishop is going to offer on his two amendments. So, we are actually, in fact, allowing Mr. Bishop to make his amendments before the House of Representatives.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 940 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 940 provides for consideration of H.R. 1528, the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order two Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Mr. Bishop of Utah. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 1528, amends the National Trails System Act to designate most of the MMM Trail System as the New England National Scenic Trail. The MMM Trail System extends from the Massachusetts border with New Hampshire through western Massachusetts and Connecticut toward the Long Island Sound. The highly popular trail system has existed for over 50 years and is predominantly managed and maintained by volunteers. The trail system travels through important historical landmarks and harbors a range of diverse ecosystems and natural resources, including mountain summits, waterfalls, and critical habitats for endangered species. In a recent feasibility study, the National Park Service recommended that the trail system be designated as a national scenic trail, with some adjustments and rerouting for a total of 220 miles. However, this study has been out since the spring of 2006; and while no changes are expected, it has been trapped in a giant morass of bureaucratic red tape that has not been finalized. H.R. 1528 is simply about cutting through this red tape and getting Federal recognition and administrative support for a trail that is already extremely popular and well managed. H.R. 1528 includes specific language protecting private property rights, and landowner cooperation in the national scenic trail designation is entirely voluntary. All landowners affected by the trail have the opportunity to have the trail rerouted around their property. Furthermore, since no Federal land is involved, Federal designation of the land has no impact on State or local laws currently in place, including those governing hunting, fishing, or trapping or local zoning or other land use issues. Madam Speaker, this designation is widely supported. It is supported by the administration and the local communities across New England, and it has bipartisan congressional support, including the Representatives of all affected districts in Connecticut and Massachusetts. In closing, I'd like to thank Chairman Rahall, Chairman Grijalva, and Mr. Olver for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor today so we can ensure that America's most treasured resources are protected for future generations. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, as we prepare to adjourn for the holiday season, we eagerly await the chance to spend time with our loved ones. Radio music and advertisements offer cheery Jingle Bell tunes, the Christmas tree on the West Lawn has been lit, and we leave with a spirit of benevolence, wishing all a merry Christmas. But unfortunately, Madam Speaker, not all who like Christmas will have it be merry because of a Grinch mean and scary who vetoes our bills with nary a thought. The Grinch stole Christmas, Madam Speaker. He's robbed from the WHOS, and there's not a one weaker. And who are the WHOS? Why, any child can tell you--the WHOS are the children, the hungry, the poor, the ones we should help, not shove out the door. While the tone I take is somewhat lighthearted, the subject matter is serious. The President, at almost every turn, has thwarted our efforts to help the most needy and vulnerable in our society. First, the President has been callous towards the most vulnerable-- our children, especially foster children. The President vetoed a 15 million dollar increase for those children who surrounded by domestic violence are forced to take the safest way out--run. These youth depend on programs authorized under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act that fund homeless shelters and counseling to diffuse conflict at home and enable them to be reunited with their families. Mr. Speaker, the 5 million dollar increase Congress approved for the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program--also vetoed by the President. To the orphaned foster youth who are denied services when the clock strikes midnight on their 18th birthday, the President turns his back on them. Homeless, without health insurance, they become just another statistic to be quoted in the list of ``throwaway'' youth. The President denied the sum of a mere 500,000 dollars to create a national registry on child abuse, a provision Congress passed with bipartisan support in the Adam Walsh Act. Currently, Madam Speaker, child abusers need only to cross state lines to avoid prosecution and find employment as teachers or daycare providers. This national registry would track the offenses of predators to prevent abuse, and it is unconscionable to deny funds for this program. That is not all that's been taken from under the tree. It's just the beginning, I hope you will see. We demand so much from parents this day in age, Madam Speaker. They balance full-time parenting with full-time employment, often, at the cost of family life. They make this sacrifice with the promise of providing a better future for their children. They send them to school and trust it will better equip them for tomorrow. However, this President has turned a blind eye towards the education of our children. The President's priorities translate into budget cuts for programs like Head Start, who will be forced to shut their programs door on 34,000 children. Despite Congressional intent to increase funding for the 6.9 million children receiving special education, the President wants to reduce that funding and slash K-12 education by 1.3 billion dollars. Madam Speaker, the President's priorities must not be allowed to stand. All children, no matter what their station in life, deserve a quality education and this Congress will continue to fight to ensure we honor our obligations to them. And while the President will enjoy many Christmas carols this season, he wants to eliminate funding for Universal Newborn Hearing programs. Madam Speaker, I could go on and on. This short, but illuminating list, best highlights the differences between the priorities of our two parties. Congress will continue to fight for these vital programs and to ensure that the least among us are well protected. As we adjourn for the holidays and celebrate the season with our families, let us get in the Christmas spirit and rededicate ourselves to the welfare of the most vulnerable. ``And the Grinch with his Grinch-feet ice cold in the snow, stood puzzling and puzzling, how could it be so? It came without ribbons. It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags. And he puzzled and puzzled 'till his puzzler was sore. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before. What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store? What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more.'' Thank you, happy holidays.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 861 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, a founding member of the Blue Dog Coalition and absolute champion on the issue of fiscal responsibility and making sure that this House returns to fiscal sanity, Mr. Tanner. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 861.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and an absolute champion on this issue, Mr. Obey.

Mr. CARDOZA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 861 provides for consideration of H.R. 4351, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clause 9 and clause 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, the Democratic philosophy is simple: We believe in pay-as-you-go. In other words, we believe that you should live within your financial means. Every family that makes these choices around the kitchen table every month in order to live within its budget understands that simple fact of life. The Federal Government used to understand this, too. In fact, the Clinton administration and the Democratic Congress worked with Republicans on a bipartisan basis and turned decades of exploding budget deficits into 4 straight years of budget surpluses through the use of pay-as-you-go or PAYGO rules in this House. The use of PAYGO through the 1990s and early 2000s helped lead us to the first Federal budget surpluses in over 30 years at that time, and we saw record economic growth during that period which resulted in the addition of 22 million American jobs. And in that time, America actually began to pay down the national debt to foreign nations. Despite the proven success of PAYGO, President Bush and the Republican Congress abandoned the PAYGO rules in the year 2002, allowing it to expire with no interest in reinstating it. According to the Bush administration's own numbers, President Bush's policies are on track to increase the Federal debt by over $4 trillion by the year 2008. It took, Madam Speaker, 41 Presidents combined to accumulate the total of $4 trillion in debt. This means that the debt America incurred over the first 200 plus years of our Nation will be doubled in only 8 years under the Bush administration. Worse, Madam Speaker, about 80 cents of every dollar of new debt since the year 2001 has been financed by foreign investors, including foreign governments, especially China. This has resulted in 50 percent of our Nation's debt now being owned by the following countries: China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. At the start of the 110th Congress, Democrats provided real choices and a new direction for America. We made good on our commitment to PAYGO and did what 6 years of Republican Congresses before us refused to do: We restored PAYGO rules to make sure that we do not spend more money than we have. Once again, the Democratic leadership brings to the floor H.R. 4351, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2007, that provides millions of middle-class families with tax cuts to help grow our economy without increasing our national debt. H.R. 4351 prevents 23 million families from being hit by the AMT, and it helps 12 million children by expanding their child tax credit. The Republicans will surely say that this bill raises taxes, but that is far from the truth. Let me set the record straight right from the beginning. This bill closes tax loopholes that allows a privileged few on Wall Street to pay a lower tax rate on their income than other hardworking Americans, such as school teachers, police officers, firefighters, and our Nation's veterans. This bill stops hedge fund managers from making hundreds of millions of dollars by using offshore tax havens to avoid paying income tax while other middle-class families play by the rules and pay their fair share. It also prevents multinational companies from shifting their income to offshore entities and from creating sham corporations in tax- friendly jurisdictions to avoid Federal taxation. We would all love not to have to pay our taxes. Why should we allow these big corporations to go offshore to avoid paying their fair share? It seems only fair that if hardworking American middle-class families play by the rules and pay their fair share that the wealthy and huge multinational corporations that are gaming the system should pay their fair share as well. Madam Speaker, this Congress has made great strides to get our fiscal house in order. If we want to continue down the path towards fiscal sanity, we must make sure that every piece of legislation that we consider, including this bill, fixing the AMT, complies with the PAYGO rules. The Blue Dogs and the House Democratic leadership are standing strong behind our commitment to fiscal responsibility through PAYGO. I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer and Chairman Rangel for their unwavering commitment to sticking with the PAYGO rules. I would also like to reiterate to the other body that our leadership is committed to abiding by the PAYGO rules and not considering any AMT bill on the House floor that is not fully paid for. Madam Speaker, the $9.1 trillion debt that our country has irresponsibly racked up, nearly half of which has happened in the last 6 years, must be paid back, and it will be paid back by our children and our grandchildren if not by us. We need to adhere to the old adage that we should provide a better life for our children than the ones that we found ourselves. Quite simply, we should be investing in our children's future and not borrowing from it. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make the right choice today, to stand by PAYGO today, to stand by PAYGO tomorrow, and support this commonsense legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Budget Committee, a distinguished member of this body, Mr. Doggett.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire from the gentleman from Washington if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on my side and so I would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have said that this bill raises taxes, but that's far from the truth. Let me again, as I did in my opening, set the record straight. This bill closes tax loopholes that allow a privileged few on Wall Street to pay a lower tax rate on their income than the average hardworking American does on their income. That includes school teachers, police officers, firefighters, our Nation's veterans, and, frankly, even us privileged that are able to serve here as Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans need to make a choice today. Are they going to stand with tax cheats and hedge fund managers, or are they going to stand with the 23 million hardworking Americans who will be affected by this policy? Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is united in our commitment to fiscal discipline and ensuring that government lives within its means. The Democratic Congress pledged to exercise spending restraint and to stop shouldering our country's needs on the backs of our children and grandchildren. We strongly urge the other body, Democrats and Republicans, to have the courage and good sense to keep the promise they made to the American people to be good stewards of their taxpayer dollars. We can't pick and choose when we comply with PAYGO rules if we want to reverse the irresponsible fiscal policy of the Bush administration and the prior Republican Congresses. By restoring budget discipline and getting back on the path to budget surpluses, we ensure America is economically strong and that we are not beholden to foreign nations such as China, Japan, Iran and Saudi Arabia whom we are borrowing this money from; that we are protecting our Social Security and Medicare programs; and that paying down the national debt is not a burden that we are going to put on the backs of our children and generations to come. With this, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendments to H. Res. 861 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington (1) In section 1, insert ``and any amendment thereto'' after ``ordered on the bill''. (2) In section 1. strike ``and (2) one motion to recommit'', and insert: ``(2) the amendment printed in section 3, if offered by Representative Hastings of Washington or his designee, which shall he in order without intervention of an point of order (except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI) or demand for division of the question, shall he considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions''. (3) At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as follows: ``At the end of the bill add the following new section:

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

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke talks about malarkey. I would say that his side of the aisle should know about malarkey after they raised the Federal deficit over $4 trillion in the last 6 years. I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and an absolute fighter on behalf of fiscal responsibility in this House.