Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2206) making emergency supplemental appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good new friend from Tampa (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and to congratulate her on her statement that she has just provided. But, Mr. Speaker, I rise to reluctantly oppose this rule.

This bill has lots of problems, and I understand the problems on the other side of the aisle. I am very happy to see the distinguished Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, my very good friend John Conyers, here.

It was just a year ago, it was just a year ago this month, that we were on the floor with our own lobbying bill, and we faced many of the same problems and challenges that Chairman Conyers and others in the Democratic leadership are facing at this moment. Trying to address the concerns that our colleagues have on this issue is a challenge, a very challenging thing, and they have discovered the lesson that I learned long ago, and that is reform is very hard work. It is a constant work in progress.

I was reminded by one of my staff members that I had said at one point as we moved ahead with a reform bill, which I am happy to say we passed in the last Congress, I said, when we are done with that reform, what we need to do is work on more reform.

This is, again, a constant work in progress, and will continue to be. And I believe it is part of our responsibility to constantly look at ways in which we can reform and improve the operations of this institution.

But if the bill that this House passed in the last Congress was described as a ``sham,'' it is very unfortunate, and Mr. Conyers and Ms. Castor and others were there when I was describing this, the very distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules no fewer than seven times when we, a year ago this month, were debating this measure, described the bill I had, H.R. 4975, as a ``sham'' bill.

I have to say, as I listen to my friend from Tampa (Ms. Castor) talk about

this bill, she was going through the fact that we will have disclosure on the Internet of travel, and she went through basically the provisions included in H.R. 4975; it is basically the same bill. But, unfortunately, there are a number of important provisions included in H.R. 4975 that are not included in this measure. I find that to be somewhat troubling.

For instance, while starting out with a 2-year restriction on lobbying after Congress, the majority left that provision on the cutting room floor. They recognized, as we did, that the economics of attracting and retaining good staff, they don't work with that kind of restriction. But instead of retaining a provision which passed the House last year and would provide everyone with a degree of transparency about who was and was not under the lobbying restriction, and I am going to offer an amendment to add that back which I hope will be able to improve the bill. But this bill, as we have it, is not nearly to the level of what the new majority described as a sham in the last Congress.

While this bill provides important new criminal penalties for lobbying violations, it includes nothing, absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker, to make enforcement more rigorous.

I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to add a provision which again was included in the bill that we had passed out of this House last year which would allow the House inspector general to randomly audit lobbying disclosure filings and forward cases of wrongdoing to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

The majority's answer to that proposal was, no, we don't want enforcement of our bill. Enforcement is always a challenge. We deal with that with the issue of illegal immigration and a wide range of things. It is easy to put all kinds of great ideas out there, but if there is no enforcement, it has no teeth and no chance of success. That is something that is very lacking in this bill. We had it in our lobbying reform bill that passed last year, and I offered it as an amendment at the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, my colleagues in the majority on the Rules Committee rejected it.

Mr. Speaker, last year, Mr. Castle added a provision on the floor requiring lobbyists to take ethics training. Is that provision in this bill? Nope, it's not.

Did the majority make Mr. Castle's amendment in order to consider that? Nope, they didn't.

My colleague, Dr. Gingrey, a former member of the Rules Committee, added an amendment on the floor dealing with the personal leadership of PAC funds. That was not included in the bill, and his amendment was not made in order. Last year, with bipartisan support on the floor, we amended our bill, H.R. 4975, to say that Members who have leadership PACs cannot transfer those dollars into their own account for personal use, which is what can happen today. It is not allowed for principal campaign committee accounts, but that loophole which allows Members to transfer money from their leadership PAC for personal use is still going to be allowed. And the attempt to even offer an amendment to close that horrendous loophole was denied.

That is to say nothing of the other creative ideas that were summarily rejected by the Rules Committee majority last evening.

Mr. Speaker, if the bill which I sponsored last year was a sham, and as I said the chairman of the Rules Committee, although last night she said she never said it, seven times it is in the Congressional Record when she was offering her motion to recommit, if it was a sham, then this bill can only be characterized at this moment as being ``sub- sham,'' and our efforts to raise it to the level of a mere sham were rebuffed, unfortunately, in the Rules Committee.

Which brings me to the rule for this bill, Mr. Speaker. For all of the criticism the Republicans take for the way we administered the House, and we hear that constantly up in the Rules Committee and down here on the floor, it is notable this bill makes in order fewer amendments than we did when we considered our bill last year.

The rule for H.R. 4975, our lobbying bill, made in order nine amendments. This year, only five amendments were made in order. And while it gives Mr. Van Hollen an up-or-down vote on his so-called bundling disclosure bill, it doesn't attach it to the lobbying bill going to the Senate, making it much more difficult to ultimately reach passage.

Mr. Speaker, this rule and these bills are not unlike many of the so- called reforms instituted in this Congress, which means all show and no substance whatsoever.

For instance, our Democratic friends take credit for adopting and supposedly improving Republican earmark disclosure reforms. As Mr. Flake found out just last week, when it comes to actually trying to enforce those rules, the Rules Committee eliminated every avenue for a Member to bring this question before the House. On top of that, Mr. Flake had several amendments addressing lobbying for earmarks. Mr. Speaker, none of those amendments were made in order.

In the end, there is little in this bill that is truly objectionable. My friend from Tampa went through and outlined the provisions included in H.R. 4975 that passed this House a year ago this month with bipartisan support. Again, there is little that is truly objectionable. There is very little that is in this bill that is beyond what we had in the last Congress; and, unfortunately, it doesn't include or even provide an opportunity to provide amendments to include many of the items that were so important in this effort.

This bill takes no risk, reaches no heights, and falls short of the lofty promises made by my newly minted majority colleagues. Unfortunately, the rule is unacceptable in its current form, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to urge its defeat.

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

Mr. Speaker, we're all reformers today, and at this time I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to a great reformer from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my very dear friend for yielding, and I would simply say the reason we're calling for a ``no'' vote on the rule is that we should allow us to get to what I, as we now know, affectionately describe what the former minority leadership called the sham level. We need to at least get up to the level, and I'm very appreciative of the remarks that my friend has offered characterizing, I think correctly, my bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, our good friend from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the leader on the issue of earmark reform, the gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify this once again, if I might.

So a private institution is not allowed to provide any kind of meal or support, tickets or things like that, but a public institution is able to?

So that won't be changed under this bill that we are considering right now. Am I correct in concluding that?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say to my friend, the example of allowing a public institution to provide meals and tickets and all kinds of things while a private institution cannot do that underscores the fact that this issue needs to be addressed in a broad bipartisan way.

Now, in the exchange that I had with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary upstairs, he was happy to give it back over to us at the Rules Committee. We should have had an original jurisdiction hearing on a wide range of these issues that have not been addressed. In the last Congress, we held four original jurisdiction hearings on this issue. This year there have been none.

So I think that the point that my friend from Mesa is making, very correctly, is that he made a bipartisan attempt to the new majority leadership to try and address this and was rebuffed.

Everyone has recognized, I believe, certainly on our side of the aisle, and we did so when we were in the majority, that the issue of reform needs to be done in a bipartisan way. I know that on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith, the ranking member, has worked with Chairman Conyers; but there are many of the rest of us who have been involved in this issue of reform who I believe should have been consulted, especially in light of a number of provisions that were included; and, in fact, one provision which is absolutely outrageous, no hearing whatsoever, it was literally snuck into this bill, dealing with the question of Members attending charitable events. No hearing, no consideration whatsoever. A piecemeal attempt to do this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the 29th of March, nearly 2 months ago, the minority leader, Mr. Boehner, sent a letter to the Speaker asking that she deal with these important questions which impact every single Member of this institution with a bipartisan panel. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to inform the House that Minority Leader Boehner has gotten no response to that letter that was sent nearly 2 months ago. So that is why we are concerned about this process.

Yes, the bill itself is one which included so much of what I was proud to include in H.R. 4975; does not get to that level. But I am urging opposition to this rule, as is Mr. Flake, as was Dr. Gingrey and others of my colleagues, so that we can try and improve this in a bipartisan way.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side? And then I would like to ask my colleague, she indicated she was the last speaker a few minutes ago, and then Mr. Doggett joined us.

So the gentlewoman is the last speaker?

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is on her feet and so I would actually like to engage her in a colloquy, if I might, and ask some questions. I would be more than happy to yield to my friend from Tampa.

I am very concerned about the ramifications of this measure, and I talked about the concern that I have over this issue of charitable events, and that this item was in a piecemeal way stuck into this rule, and I raised the issue of the letter.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record a copy of the letter that was sent by Mr. Boehner to my California colleague Speaker Pelosi. Mr. Speaker, the reason I do that is that there has been no response to this nearly 2-month-old letter; and I hope that maybe someone on the Speaker's staff will read the Congressional Record and see this request for a truly bipartisan approach to this issue.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: The American people have every right

to expect the highest ethical standards here in the people's

House. Yet, less than three months into the 110th Congress it

has become clear that House ethics rules are hopelessly

broken. Members on both sides of the aisle are understandably

frustrated because they know you can't ``clean up Congress''

with confusing rules that are as difficult to comply with as

they are to enforce.

It is equally clear that until the ethics rules are

repaired through a genuinely bipartisan process, they will

continue to lack the credibility needed to ensure broad

compliance, effective enforcement and widespread public

acceptance.

As you know, sweeping changes to House ethics rules imposed

at the start of this Congress were drafted in secret by the

incoming Majority without consulting either the Minority or

the staff of the nonpartisan Ethics Committee. The new rules

were then rammed through the House with no opportunity to

carefully analyze the proposals or to improve them in any

way. The consequences of this ill-considered approach are now

being felt by Members and staff on both sides of the aisle:

A staffer may attend an evening reception hosted by a

corporation and consume shrimp, champagne, sliced filet and

canapes . . . but may not accept a slice of pizza or a $7 box

lunch provided by the very same

corporation at a policy briefing the next day. [see Ethics

Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (pp. 4-5)]

Although Members and staff may play in a $1,000 per person

charity golf tournament to benefit a local scholarship fund,

they are prohibited from similarly helping the American Red

Cross raise funds for Katrina victims by playing in its golf

tournament--solely because the Red Cross employs lobbyists.

[see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Jan 19, 2007 (p. 7)]

In order to go on a ``first date'' with someone who happens

to be a lobbyist, a staffer must agree to pay for his or her

full share of the lunch or dinner, as well as anything else

of value, such as a movie, concert or ballgame. [see Ethics

Committee ``pink sneet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p.2)]

A Member may accept $200 tickets for the Final Four from

Ohio State (public university), but not $20 tickets to a

preseason game from Xavier University (private university).

[see Gifts & Travel, House Ethics Committee, April 2000 (p.

37)]

A Member may accept a $15 t-shirt or $20 hat from the Farm

Bureau, but not a $12 mug or mouse pad. Similarly, a $4 latte

is OK--but a $4 sandwich is not. [see Ethics Committee ``pink

sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p. 5)]

A Member who has his own airplane is prohibited from flying

it for any purpose--official, campaign or personal--even at

his own expense. [see Ethics Committee letter to Rep. Stevan

Pearce, Feb 16, 2007]

A staffer invited to a post-season barbecue for her

daughter's soccer team may not attend once she learns that it

will be held in the home of a player whose father is a

lobbyist. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007

(p. 2)]

Although a Member may not accept dinner from a lobbyist who

uses his own funds or those of his firm, he may accept dinner

from the very same lobbyist using a credit card provided by

his state or local government clients. [see clause 5(a)(3)(O)

of House Rule XXV]

A corporate executive who is not a lobbyist may not use his

expense account to take a Member out to dinner, but may--in

many cases--take the same Member to dinner using his personal

funds. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p.

3)]

A Member may not take a privately-funded trip if a lobbyist

accompanies him to and from Washington; but the same Member

may spend five days in Brussels discussing global warming

with environmental group lobbyists--as long as none of them

are on the same flights to and from the meeting. [see Ethics

Committee ``pink sheet'', March 14, 2007 (p. 2)]

It's no surprise that Members deeply committed to following

the rules are confused and concerned by the current state of

disarray in the House.

Making matters worse, the chaos inflicted on Members and

staff by careless (or worse) Democrat rule writers has now

infected the legislative process as well. For example,

confusion over the proper application of congressional

earmark rules has made it possible for Democratic leaders to

certify as ``earmark free'' a multi-billion dollar Continuing

Resolution that any knowledgeable observer will confirm was

laden with them.

Moreover, the failure of the House Ethics Committee to

provide official guidance to Members seeking to comply with

newly adopted earmark ``conflict of interest'' rules until

after the deadline fix submission of earmark requests had

expired has unnecessarily disrupted the FY08 appropriations

process by delaying for more than a month processing of many

Member earmark requests, and complicated efforts to make the

earmark process more transparent.

This latter incident underscores the folly of Democrats

rushing to unilaterally impose complicated and contradictory

new rules on the House, and then denying an entirely

reasonable joint request by the Chairman and Ranking

Republican of the Ethics Committee for the additional

resources the panel needs to carry out its added

responsibilities to Members.

Sadly, Democrat leaders straining to legitimize their

campaign rhetoric have instead left Members--on both sides of

the aisle--more vulnerable than ever to violating rules that

are hard to define, riddled with logical inconsistencies, and

utterly unlikely to prevent the sort of abuses that have

properly sparked so much public outrage.

After all, few of the ``Culture of Corruption'' violations

by Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney--or alleged violations by

William Jefferson and Alan Mollohan--would have been

prevented had the recently passed ethics changes been in

effect last year.

Rather, the principled path to a more ethical Congress is

through clearcut, common sense rules that are widely

communicated and firmly enforced. And, as you and your fellow

Democrat leaders argued so persuasively during the last

Congress, the process of developing those rules must be

transparent and genuinely bipartisan.

To that end, I ask that you join me in appointing a

bipartisan working group tasked with analyzing House ethics

rules--and recommending fair, sensible and understandable

revisions that working group members believe would improve

both compliance and enforcement.

As with the Livingston-Cardin ethics task force in 1997,

the working group should be led by co-chairs and evenly

divided between majority and minority members. I propose that

it consist of six to eight members, including a member of the

ethics committee from each party (but neither its chairman

nor ranking minority member), one elected leader from each

party, and one or two additional Members from each side of

the aisle.

I further propose that we direct the working group to

report back its recommendations no later than July 1, 2007 to

allow time for the House to consider its proposed revisions

to the Rules of the House prior to the August recess.

Madam Speaker, I have been encouraged by recent public

statements made by you and members of your staff noting your

desire to correct evident problems with several of the new

rules. Thus, I hope you will commit to work constructively

with me to ensure that any revisions to the Code of Conduct

and other House rules are imbued with the sort of credibility

that you have often pointed out can only result from a

thoroughly bipartisan effort.

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner,

Republican Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask my colleague from Tampa to describe a term that is in this bill.

Now, one of the questions out there is that Members of Congress are often approached by people and considered for employment beyond their service in this institution. Now, in H.R. 4975, we were very specific in saying that when negotiation for compensation, and those are the exact words that we used in H.R. 4975, are included in the bill, then there has to be a letter to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct stating that that negotiating process has begun. So we had that exact term of ``negotiating for compensation.'' Those are the three words that we had in there.

Now, I would like to inquire of my friend from Tampa why it was in this measure that they went from ``negotiation for compensation'' to simply ``negotiation.'' And the reason I say that is a very sincere one.

The question naturally comes to mind, now, the gentlewoman from Tampa is new here and obviously not prepared to leave at this point. But there are people, Mr. Speaker, who may have been here for a while and people have decided they wanted to approach them.

Is it negotiation if it is simply said to that person, ``Gosh, we'd like you to consider going to work for us''? And so I am wondering if my friend might define this term ``negotiation'' for us. And I am happy to yield to the distinguished manager of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, if I might reclaim my time. And I do so to simply say, I was posing a question to my colleague, not asking for a campaign speech on what the American people sent us to do here in November. The fact is, Democrats and Republicans alike are committed to reform. I am very proud of the record we have had on reform, and I am honored to have had it praised by the distinguished Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The question that I have is a very specific one: Why in this legislation did we go from the utilization of three words, ``negotiation for compensation,'' to this open-ended question of simply ``negotiation''?

I would be happy to further yield to my friend to elucidate us on that.

Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time. My question, and I will pose it again to my colleague from Tampa. The issue of negotiation for Members of Congress, the debate that we are having now is not about the message that was sent last November, it is not about Medicare part D. It is a question about the issue of lobbying and ethics reform in this institution. And obviously my colleague doesn't really have an answer to this question.

What it does do is it underscores the fact that it is absolutely essential that we deal with this issue in a responsible, bipartisan way to try to bring about some kind of resolution in here. And so I am very, very troubled with the way that this has been handled in a piecemeal way.

And so, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the effort is a valiant one. I congratulate and praise those who have been involved in it. And as I said in my opening remarks, it's very clear that reform is a work in progress. And we need to do more on the issue of reform. It's just that this bill is nowhere near the level of the bill that was passed under the Republican Congress. And I will say, I hope very much this institution will pass a bill that is even better than the one that I was privileged to author in the 109th Congress. And I believe that we could do better than we did in the 109th Congress. It's just that this measure, after all of this talk of reform, after all of this talk about the message sent last November, falls short of where we were in the last Congress, and that's why we are very troubled by this.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so that when we succeed in defeating the previous question, I will be able to make in order an amendment that was offered that specifically provides greater disclosure and transparency and accountability which, again, are the three buzz words that are used around here: transparency, disclosure and accountability.

If, in fact, a Member is asking for an earmark, if a Member has been asked for an earmark by a lobbyist, under the amendment that I hope that we will be able to make in order, that Mr. Flake has propounded and unfortunately it was rejected by the Rules Committee, it would simply require that lobbying entity to disclose the fact that they have, in fact, made that in order.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to, just before the vote on the previous question, have printed in the Congressional Record a detailed explanation of the amendment that would require that lobbyists who make a request of a Member, that they call for an earmark to be made, that that information be made public. I believe that that, in and of itself, is a very, very modest but responsible thing that needs to be done in this effort to ensure greater transparency and disclosure.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the indulgence of the Chair to ask unanimous consent if I could reclaim my time. I didn't realize that my very distinguished colleague from Kentucky was here, and he had a very important question that he wanted to pose on this, and I'd ask unanimous consent to be able to reclaim my time and yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to my colleagues for their consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I express my appreciation to my very good friend, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Rochester, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I have to begin by saying how greatly saddened I am by the opening statement that was just delivered by the Chair of the Committee on Rules. Using the word ``failure'' to describe what has taken place in Iraq is, to me, as we head into this Memorial Day weekend, an extraordinarily sad message for our courageous men and women who are on the frontline in this struggle against global terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that we just got the news this morning of the death of Joseph Anzack who was one of the three troops in Iraq who was kidnapped, and as we think about this Memorial Day weekend, to say to those men and women who are there on the frontline that this is a failure, I believe, is a horrible, horrible message, and I'm greatly troubled that those words would emanate from the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, it has taken the Democratic leadership four tries, and as my very good friend from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) said in his 1-

minute speech, more than 100 days since the President's request that they have finally agreed to vote on an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that gives our troops the funding they need without tying their hands and ensuring their defeat.

Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times my friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, is saying that they have lost, saying that they have failed and saying that defeat is imminent, the passage of this funding bill will help very much to ensure that that is not the case.

I'm extremely proud that we have been able to hold the line on the disastrous proposal and this notion that somehow we have lost and we have failed in the struggle against terrorism. Unfortunately, though, at this point in the debate, we can't be totally certain about what it is exactly that we're agreeing upon, particularly in the case, Mr. Speaker, of the additional spending.

Now, let me explain why. For several years, there has been concern from both sides of the aisle about the lack of availability of the text of bills and conference reports. That concern has been raised by both Democrats and Republicans on a regular basis.

I would like to briefly, for our colleagues, outline a timeline for how this rule we are debating at this moment was produced. Last night, the Committee on Rules adjourned at roughly 8:45 p.m. after reporting the rule on lobbying reform, which we will be considering in a little while.

Then members of the Rules Committee patiently waited until 11 p.m., when we were notified the text of the supplemental agreement wouldn't be ready until the early morning hours and that the Rules Committee would hold an emergency meeting at 7 a.m.

The text of the Obey amendments were then circulated to the Rules Committee members at 5:39 this morning, just a few hours ago; 5:39 this morning, less than 1\1/2\ hours before we convened the Rules Committee. The text of the amendments were not posted publicly on the committee's Web site until around the time we actually met.

Now we are here considering the rule, which makes in order language which spends $119.99999 billion, less than 4 hours after it was actually submitted.

I remember my very good friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter) regularly saying that we needed to be provided with 24 hours notice. This clearly is a far cry from what was promised at the beginning of this Congress.

This language may very well represent the agreement between the House, the Senate and the administration. However, there is no way for us to know this, because there has been no time to thoroughly read the language and verify.

Unfortunately, as most Members must at this point, I shall have to proceed under an assumption. I must say that I am very concerned about the negative impact the ongoing surrender debate has had in Iraq, both in terms of the morale of our troops and our credibility with the Iraqi people. I am concerned about the impact that this delay in funding has had on our military as well.

But, ultimately, we have succeeded in ensuring that this body has the opportunity to fund our troops without simultaneously handing the terrorists a date certain for our surrender. While this process, this political process has played out, I talked a great deal about what the consequences would be if we were to abandon the Iraqis to the terrorists. And, of course, al Qaeda has taken responsibility for the murder of Mr. Anzack, whom I mentioned, Joseph Anzack.

They clearly are in the midst of their drive. We also are hoping very much that we can see this fledgling democracy take hold. That is why what we are going to be doing here, providing that necessary support, helps us in that quest, but there is no need to take my word in this matter. We are hearing repeatedly, repeatedly from our people on the ground, from the Iraqi leadership and from the Iraqi people, that withdrawing before our mission is complete would have terrible consequences.

Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, Feisal Amin al-Istrabadi, has implored us not to leave. I would like to quote Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations. ``We are at war together,'' he recently said. ``We are allied at war together against a common enemy. We have one way forward: together.''

In a recent interview with the New York Post, he talked about the troop surge and pointed to the progress that is being made because of it. At this critical juncture, Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations believes we should be redoubling our efforts and pressing forward, not debating a withdrawal at the precise moment that progress is being made.

Every Member of this body knew at the beginning of this process that the President would never sign a withdrawal bill. The President said it, and the President says what he means, and he means what he says.

Unfortunately, as Mr. Lungren pointed out in his 1-minute speech earlier, the weeks and weeks of pointless debate on our surrender date have clearly taken their toll in Iraq. As Ambassador al-Istrabadi points out, and I quote, ``It's been very painful to watch the political process in Washington, because it seems to have very little to do with Iraq.'' He says that al Qaeda has been following this debate closely. The ambassador says, ``There are real enemies who are watching the debate, who understand what's happening here and who think they can affect the outcome of the debate.''

He is baffled, as I am baffled, that the Democratic leadership could even consider playing right into the terrorists' hands. How on earth could we even contemplate giving them what they want and turning the country and the region over to them?

I understand many Americans just want this war to be over. I want this war to be over, too. I would like nothing more. I would like nothing more than to be able to tell the people whom I am honored to represent here that their husbands and wives and sons and daughters and brothers and sisters are going to be coming home tomorrow.

The problem is that, even if we were to withdraw from Iraq, the war would not magically be over. We can pick up and go home. We can turn off our TV sets and ignore what is taking place over there. But the war will still go on. The terrorists will continue their battle for Iraq and for the region; only, this time, we would not be there to stop them.

We would not be there to train and strengthen the Iraqi Army and police forces or to help strengthen those democratic institutions.

I have to say that I am particularly proud of the work that our House Democracy Assistance Commission is doing. David Price of North Carolina has chaired this effort, and we are hoping to be able to include Iraq's parliament as we work in consultation to help them build this fledgling democracy.

Before long, I have no doubt whatsoever that the war would make its way to our doorstep once again. We ignored a growing terrorist haven once before, and we suffered the worst attack on our soil because of it.

I was very proud during the decade of the 1980s to work with a number of our colleagues in providing the assistance to the Mujahedin who were fighting to liberate their country of Afghanistan from the Soviet Union. When that was over, we left and did virtually nothing to help build a democracy.

Did Afghanistan teach us anything? Did September 11 teach us nothing? Burying our heads in the sand is not an effective defense. The consequences of abandoning our mission in Iraq would be even graver than the consequences of ignoring the growing terrorist threat that took place during the decade of the 1990s in Afghanistan. This time, not only would the terrorists establish another safe haven from which to operate their global terror network, they would, and I quote, ``erect a triumphant monument on the ruins of American power,'' as the American Enterprise Institute scholar Frederick Kagan said.

We simply cannot and will not strengthen the hands of terrorists who have made the destruction of America their number one priority. We cannot and will not abandon the Iraqis to be butchered by these terrorists in their midst. We cannot and will not abandon our mission just as real progress is starting to be made.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and then I'm going to be yielding to one of my colleagues.

Let me say that at 7 o'clock this morning I praised the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey. He knows that I have the utmost respect for him and his work. He is very, very diligent, and a very, very thoughtful Member. And I have been privileged to serve with him for the last more than a quarter of a century, as we were counting upstairs some of our former colleagues who are long departed, Mr. Dabo, Mr. Conte, and others.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that, with all due respect to my friend, I am not bellyaching about the process itself. I am not bellyaching about what it is that got us here. I am simply pointing to a promise that was made to this institution; and that promise, Mr. Speaker, was that there would be 24 hours to review legislation before it is brought to the floor. And I will acknowledge that when we were in the majority, we did not always provide that 24 hours. But, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Wisconsin, it is not about what we did, it is about what this new majority promised they were going to do. And that commitment was that after this laborious late-night negotiating process that included Members of the other body, the White House, and Members of this body into the night, that there would be a 24-hour opportunity for Members to look at a $119.99 billion spending measure.

So I have to say that the process that led up to the creation of this is historically the process that does bring about bipartisan agreements. The gentleman is absolutely right, not everyone is happy with all the measures included in this bill. But the fact of the matter is we are where we are; we have gotten here under challenging circumstances. As I said, the Rules Committee adjourned at 8:45 last night. At 11 o'clock we were informed that we would have an emergency meeting at 7 o'clock this morning, and at 5:39 this morning it was made available to us.

And here we are just a few hours later considering it on the House floor. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm hoping to go back to Los Angeles tomorrow morning, and I'd like to be able to do that. But I'm more than willing to help this majority comply with the promise that they made that on all major legislation, they would in fact provide the minority and, frankly, the majority Members with 24 hours to review the legislation.

And, finally, I just have to say that when we hear arguments that somehow

President Bush is playing into the hands of the terrorists and responsible for where we are, Mr. Speaker, September 11 of 2001 changed not only the United States but the world. The largest most important Nation in the history of mankind suffered an attack the likes of which we had never seen in our Nation's history. And so, taking on a multi- pronged approach, dealing with, as we have in both Afghanistan and in Iraq, and we all know that Iraq is the central front for al Qaeda, has been very important. You can raise issues like weapons of mass destruction and other items like that, but the fact of the matter is, we are where we are today. And I believe that it would be a horrendous mistake for us to take a retrograde step, which is exactly what those terrorists want.

And with that, I'm happy to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend from Sacramento, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I was recognized, and I announced at the beginning----

Mr. Speaker, was I out of order by yielding to my colleague?

Mr. Speaker, I was in control of the time. I yielded myself such time as I may consume, and as I did that, I asked that I yield to my colleague from California.

But if, in fact, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules wishes to supersede that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, with that, I'm happy to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).

(Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my very good friend from Rochester how many speakers she has remaining and then how much time is remaining on each side.

I will reserve the balance of my time, then.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that my friend from Rochester is just going to close the debate on her side.

Then I will yield myself the balance of the time on our side. How much time is that, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Let me begin by saying that I do have the utmost respect for the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations and, of course, for my Chair, the gentlewoman from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter). And I understand that there is great sincerity on their part in this quest here and I understand there is a desire to ensure that we have a process that works. I will just make a couple of comments on process here and some concerns that I have and then I have some other remarks on the overall issue of the war.

We have gone through, as we know, four incarnations of this attempt and now 110 days that has really prevented us from making sure that we have had an opportunity to get the funding necessary for our troops. Through that process, Democrats and Republicans alike have regularly said they don't want to do anything to prevent funding from getting to our troops. And I respect that. Again, Members on both sides of the aisle have pointed that out, Mr. Speaker. But we all know that from the outset, the President made it clear that he was going to veto anything that established an artificial timeline which he, and I agree with him, concluded would be a prescription for admitting defeat. And so he was very strong on that and unwavering.

So we've gotten to the point where we are at this moment, and that point is we have a 213-page package that is before us. My good friend from Wisconsin said that I was bellyaching about the process, and I will say again to my colleagues, I'm not complaining about what took place in the hours leading up to the consideration of this package. This is my 27th year here and I understand that negotiations among the Senate, the House and the White House are challenging and can often go into the night. The only point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that as we look at this process of having this 213-page measure before us, we were promised by the new majority that we would be given 24 hours before consideration of major legislation here on the House floor. And, as I said, and I am really somewhat confused on this because, I would say to my friend from Wisconsin, I look at the time stamp on this. The time stamp on the measure that we are voting on is 9:38 p.m. last night. Yet he said that he was negotiating into the night, 1 o'clock in the morning. I mean, I didn't follow all of the incarnations of this, but I do know that we received this at 5:39 this morning, and that was less than an hour and a half before the Rules Committee was scheduled to convene at its 7 a.m. meeting this morning. And then we had it made public at about the time our group convened, the Rules Committee convened. And so that does concern me.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be urging my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow Members to offer motions to strike earmarks which are undoubtedly going to come to the attention of Members the longer that this agreement is available.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment and extraneous material be printed in the Congressional Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, finally, we are going into this Memorial Day weekend. I have the honor of participating in seven Memorial Day events on Monday in southern California, and I will be meeting with family members.

Just yesterday, I met with the mother of a young man, Mr. Colnot, who lost his life over a year ago in Iraq. She said to me just yesterday afternoon, ``It is absolutely essential that we complete our mission.''

I have regularly pointed to another one of my constituents whose son paid the ultimate price. A man called Ed Blecksmith's son, J.P., died over 2 years ago, 2\1/2\ years ago, on the famous November battle of Fallujah.

And repeatedly Mr. Blacksmith has said to me, ``You must complete this mission or my son, J.P., will have died in vain.''

So, Mr. Speaker, as we go into this Memorial Day weekend, I thank God that we are going to pass this measure that will be providing the essential support for our troops, so that General David Petraeus and the new leadership, with a new strategy to deal with uncertainty, will have the hope of victory. There is no guaranteed success, but there is a hope for victory because this is a struggle which is going to continue on and on and on as long as there are people out there who are going to try to do us in, to kill us, and to change our way of life.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can offer my amendment. And if by chance we are not successful on that, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule because of the unfair process that we have. But if in fact the rule does proceed, I urge everyone, in a bipartisan way, to support the very important measure that will allow us to support our troops and allow them to complete their mission.

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that if in fact we were going to see compliance with this 24-hour request, the 9:38 time stamp that is on this measure, the 6:30 time stamp that is on the other, the domestic spending measure would have in fact allowed us to consider this measure on the floor on Friday, which is really what should have happened as we proceeded with that.

If the gentlewoman will yield.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, all I'm saying is that we were promised a 24-hour opportunity for Members of both the Democratic and the Republican Parties to have a chance to review this measure. And I believe that having gone 110 days, that allowing for a review with potential earmarks and other items in here is the responsible thing to do because that is the promise that was made to this institution at the beginning of the 110th Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 438, I call up the bill (H.R. 2206) making emergency supplemental appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 438, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the pending legislation and that I be permitted to include tables, charts and other extraneous material.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two sets of issues before us, the President's request for almost $100 billion to finance the cost of the war in Iraq for the remainder of this fiscal year, which ends October 1.

There is a second set of issues which relate to urgent needs for this year, additional funding for State Children's Health Insurance Program to prevent many thousands of poor children and some of their parents from losing health coverage; gulf coast recovery after Katrina; drought relief for farmers and the 70 percent of the U.S. counties that the President named as disaster areas; and other areas where we believe we must do more than the President wants to do; defense health, such as efforts to provide more help to veterans with traumatic rain injury; veterans' health, to help veterans overcome ridiculous backlogs; homeland security, to strengthen our ports, our borders and our cargo inspection systems; full funding for BRAC, the base realignment requirements; additional funding for military housing needs; and greater resources to wage the effort to root out al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Dealing with these issues is complicated by the fact that this country and this Congress are deeply divided on our involvement in the Iraqi civil war, which has dragged on now for more than 4 years.

Several weeks ago, House Democrats tried to use the President's funding request to establish a process to responsibly end our involvement in that Iraqi civil war. To that end, we passed and sent to the President a plan that spent almost $4 billion more than the President wanted on the health and safety of our troops. It established limits on how much sacrifice could be asked of U.S. military units when no one else, except for military families, are appreciably sacrificing anything in this so-called war effort. It also sets standards for judging the success or failure of the administration's policy.

Now, why did we do that? Because we agree with virtually every general who has said that this civil war will not be resolved militarily. It will be resolved only politically and diplomatically by Iraqi factions making the compromises necessary to bring that civil war to a conclusion.

The President vetoed that proposal. To override the veto, we needed two-thirds of the House and the Senate to concur. We didn't get it for a simple reason, that Democrats did not have two-thirds of the seats in Congress.

Next we tried to send another proposition to the President and gave the President a limited amount of money and tried to set another more flexible set of standards for proceeding with this war. That failed in the Senate.

At that point, like it or not, we ran out of options for using this fiscal year 2007 supplemental to force a change in administration policy.

On Friday we met with the administration and offered to drop all domestic items if the administration would accept meaningful benchmarks and timelines for ending our involvement in that civil war. They flatly refused. That leaves us with the Senate-passed plan, which sets a much weaker set of benchmarks than those passed by the House.

It is clear we do not have the 60 votes necessary to end debate in the Senate and force a policy change on the administration by using the fiscal year 2007 supplemental. Because there are only months left in the fiscal year, no serious person can expect that it is possible to redeploy our troops during that time.

So the question becomes, how do we continue to press for an end to our involvement in that war on a reasonable time frame? The proposition now before us shifts the debate to the President's budget request for the next fiscal year, which begins on October 1.

Weak as it is, the Senate-adopted Warner amendment, with its 18 new benchmarks, at least does end the totally blank check that previous Congresses have provided. Weak as it is, it does at least give Members of Congress whose feet are not firmly planted in the status quo another opportunity to review the futile administration policy by establishing a requirement for two reports to the Congress, one in July and one in September.

The proposal before us will mean that, in September, using the required reports, the Congress will have an opportunity to decide what course of action to take on this war. That decision will be just 4 months away.

Meanwhile, we also insist that the President accept the fact that there are other pressing needs, to which we have an obligation to respond.

This proposal contains a long overdue increase in the minimum wage for America's lowest-paid workers, a wage which may not bother many people in this Chamber but a wage which unconscionably has been frozen for a decade. It will contain $17 billion that the President did not want for added defense and veterans' health care, for BRAC, for military housing, for Homeland Security, for Katrina, drought relief and State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some items it should contain, it does not.

For example, low-income heating, home energy assistance and funding for the pandemic flu.

This proposition falls far short of containing everything that it should on both the Iraqi war and on our own domestic needs. But I take some comfort in the knowledge that even Babe Ruth struck out more than 1,300 times. But weak as it is, this proposition does provide a structure and a process to continue the fight, and it recognizes reality.

I intend to vote against the first proposition that contains the President's military request and the Warner benchmarks because I believe they are far too weak, and I believe it is important to maximize the pressure on Iraqi politicians to compromise by having as many votes as possible for a stronger proposition. I expect to vote for the second proposition, which contains the minimum wage increase, and $17 billion of the $21 billion that we sought to respond to crucial national needs.

This proposition will transfer the Iraqi fight to September on the President's fiscal 2008 defense supplemental request, and it will require a vote on a proposition that would require the funds appropriated to be used to redeploy troops on a responsible time schedule. I am sure we will also address the issue on Mr. Murtha's defense appropriation bill, on the regular bill that will come at us as we return from the Memorial Day recess.

This proposition is apparently the best that we can achieve given the votes that we have. It is my hope that, when these votes occur in September, a firm majority in both Houses will see through the smokescreens being produced by the administration and send an unequivocal message to both the administration and Iraqi political leaders that our patience is over.

Now, some news stories have said that Democrats have ``given up on the time line.'' That is patent nonsense. There has never been a chance of a snowball in Hades that Congress would cut off funding for troops in the field.

Now, some people say to us, why don't you do what you did in Vietnam and simply cut off the funds even while the troops are in the field? Well, I've got news for you, that is not what the Congress did in Vietnam. I know; I was here. When Congress passed the Addabbo amendment, there were less than 500 American troops left in Vietnam. What the Addabbo amendment did was to cut off American aid to the South Vietnamese Government.

Even if the Congress were to cut off aid to troops in the field, the President undoubtedly would not abide by that. He would simply assert his Commander in Chief authority to manage the troops any way he wanted, and we would be tied up challenging that in the court for months, long past the time period covered by the fiscal year 2007 supplemental which this legislation addresses.

The last proposal we sent to the Senate attempted to limit the amount of money available to the President to 2 months' operating expenses, fencing the rest to try to force a policy change.

All we are doing by this arrangement is to slip the timetable an additional 2 months from that proposal, shifting the debate from the 2007 supplemental to the 2008 supplemental. That means our Republican friends who continue to support the President on this misbegotten war will have to face votes in July and in September on the same issue.

We are not giving up. We are simply recognizing that no one believes that it is possible, given the Senate's inability to produce 60 votes to shut down debate, to change course during the remainder of this fiscal year. That may not be a pleasant fact, but it is a reality. Opponents of the war need to face this fact just as the President and his allies need to face the fact that they are following a dead-end policy which we will continue to make every possible effort to change.

Following are additional explanatory materials regarding the appropriations for the Department of Defense made by the House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206.

Department of Defense--Military

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let me simply note that it was the administration that refused to provide support for including funds for the pandemic flu challenge facing the country. We have tried on this side of the aisle for more than a month to include that funding.

I've even noted that it was the administration itself who originally asked for that money, as an emergency, 2 years ago. And yet they declined to support it and, in fact, insisted that it come out in this negotiation, just as they insisted that funding for low-income heating assistance come out.

So I certainly agree with the gentleman's suggestion that that money ought to be in here. I said that in my own remarks. I also want it very clear why it isn't.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

What's the gentleman's question?

Well, let me make two points. First of all, this is not all that unusual. It was not done during the time that the Republicans ran the House, but it was done often prior to that. All we have to do is to take a look at the history of the Hyde amendment and take a look at several other conference reports that were adopted, one in 1996, for instance.

With respect to the two questions, or the question about the two amendments, technically, it's my understanding that they do not apply to amendments, or that the rules do not apply to amendments.

To my knowledge, there are none.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

The previous speaker just complained about the fact that this has taken 110 days to finish. If I am not mistaken, he was the majority party whip when his party controlled this Chamber last year, and it took 110 days before the Republican-controlled Congress could get a supplemental to the President. So I think it comes with considerable ill grace for the gentleman to be calling the kettle black.

Let me also suggest that if there has been any delay whatsoever associated with this process, it is due to two things: Number one, it is a little thing called democracy. You know what? We don't have a rubber-stamp Congress anymore. If we did have a rubber-stamp Congress, we could have finished this in 1 day. But that is not what our obligation is.

And, secondly, and even more fundamentally, any delay in the process was not caused by the Congress. We had this job done 3 weeks ago. The delay was caused by fact that the President blocked the funds going to the troops when he vetoed the bill. So I would suggest that the gentleman recognize where the true responsibility lies.

We have a right and an obligation to spell out what we think is in the national interest of this country. Pardon me if it takes a few days.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I intend to yield the remainder of my time to close debate to the Speaker.

Before I do that, and before the gentleman closes with his last speaker, let me simply thank the committee staff.

Let me thank the CBO staff, the legislative counsel staff, even the White House staff, who worked with us to fashion together this package.

Regardless of how Members feel about it, it took a tremendous amount of work by people whose names never get in the papers, whose pictures never get in the papers, but who do their darnedest to see to it that the will of this House is carried out with as much clarity as possible. I appreciate their work. I appreciate their dedication to this institution and this country.

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

Mr. LEWIS OF California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the Republican leader, Mr. John Boehner.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 438 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. 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.

I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 438.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 438 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206, making emergency supplemental appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, when my fellow Members of Congress and I speak and debate and cast our votes on this floor, we seek to reconcile our ideals with what is possible to achieve. We seek to do what is right in principle and necessary at any particular point in time, and pray that the two are one and the same.

That struggle has formed the foundation of the fight Democrats have waged since January, and it is the basis of what we are doing today.

This war was not challenged by the last Congress. It was supported by the last Congress. It was defended by the last Congress. Year after year, the Republican-led House kept this war alive.

But the public rightly lost faith in the war and those who would support it unquestionably. We all know what the result was.

The first opportunity the new majority had to change course in Iraq came with the first version of this bill. That legislation conditioned any future support for the conflict upon proof that our efforts were bearing some fruit. What is more, it would have ended the war by August 2008 at the very latest. Democrats, and some Republicans, united, and that bill was passed by the House.

Democrats in the Senate agreed, and the conference report that was sent to the President was even stronger. The same benchmarks were in place, but the war was to end 6 months sooner, by March of next year.

Our position was clear and unequivocal. For the first time since 2003, a majority of the United States Congress supported a new direction in Iraq, and it was a direction which would lead to an end to the war. The President vetoed that bill.

Our Constitution requires two-thirds of the Congress to overcome a veto. Two-thirds of the public stood squarely with the Democrats in this Chamber, and a handful of Republicans, who voted to overcome it. But what we needed was significant support from the other side of the aisle, and we did not get it.

Since then the President's made it clear that he will veto any legislation which even mentions the word ``timeline,'' and so he left my fellow Democrats and me with a choice. Some would have us ignore his words and simply send him a new copy of our original bill. I certainly relate to those feelings.

But as appealing as this may seem, I do not believe that it would be right. The President and his allies in Congress have put our soldiers in harm's way, and Mr. Bush is willing to keep them there no matter how much they suffer.

If this Congress delayed funding by continuing to back a bill we cannot pass at this time, we would not force the President to end the war. All indications are that he would leave our soldiers in Iraq, and without adequate funding, they would have to do even more with even less.

The Democratic Party is the party that supports our soldiers. We're the party that fights for them to have proper equipment, training and rest. We're the party that demands that they be given a sensible strategy for victory before going into battle. We're the party that demands that they receive proper medical care once they return.

We understand the mistaken judgment and obstinacy of the White House, and so we will not prevent any funding from coming forth from this Congress, an outcome which would permit the President to further add to the struggles that our troops endure every day.

Ultimately, of course, supporting the troops means ending the war entirely, and the legislation we bring to the floor today goes as far as is possible at this moment to achieving that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone listening to look at the victories that have been won here. The President previously said he would block any bill which contained benchmarks for the war, but now the only legislation the House will deliver to him contains no fewer than 18 benchmarks linking economic aid to improvements in the Iraqi situation.

Furthermore, the President and members of the Republican minority derided what they called ``unrelated spending'' during our first debate on this bill. They did so even though Democrats were seeking only to fill the gaps left by last year's failure to give us a budget.

But today we will pass a minimum wage increase. We will increase funding for military health care and for veterans' health care, and critically needed funding for agriculture disaster aid, children's health care, and recovery from Hurricane Katrina.

What is critical for all of our citizens to understand is that what is missing from this bill, a timeline to end the war, has been neither forgotten nor conceded by the Democrats in the Congress.

To the contrary, our path forward is clear. We will fight every day until the world's greatest deliberative body lives up to its billing and actually represents the will of the people its serves.

As I said before, at least two-thirds of the American people oppose the President's approach to Iraq and want this war brought to a close. It's time that two-thirds of this Congress wants the same. And we all know where the remaining votes have to come from.

Some days in Iraq are worse than others, but all days there are bloody. Four American soldiers died on Monday. Six more died on Tuesday. Three lost their lives yesterday. Three hundred twenty-one civilians have been anonymously murdered in Baghdad just this month, an average of 13 a day.

We must not be afraid to speak what is a simple truth. Every day that the Republican minority in this Congress stands by and empowers the President to perpetuate this war, they are saying the day's deaths in Iraq are acceptable. They're saying that those lives lost are part of a price they're willing to let others pay, other mothers, other fathers, other sisters, other brothers and other children, not theirs.

But they are alone. Official Pentagon assessments now speak of Iraq's ``civil war,'' meaning the Pentagon itself has broken now from the White House. The generals on the ground are admitting that our whole approach to Iraq must change. That dialogue, even with insurgent groups the President swore he would never talk to, must replace the open-ended warfare, which means the surge has failed.

And, of course, the overwhelming majority of the American people are not willing to accept the sacrifices asked of our soldiers and Iraqi civilians not because of a lack of will, but because of an abundance of reason. They correctly see the war as it is being fought today has never and will never yield the intended results, that our soldiers have been given a mission that has failed them and the people of Iraq time and time again.

The Democrats in both Chambers of this Congress stand with them. A handful of principled Republicans stand with us as well, but not yet enough.

The American people will continue to demand that their voices be heard. They will continue to demand their Representatives no longer willfully ignore their wishes, and my fellow Democrats and I will continue to demand the same.

Together we will struggle until our collective ideals becomes one with what is possible to achieve and until this representative Congress actually represents its constituents and forces the President to do the same.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it's my time to yield time following your speech.

Nonetheless, I think we do alternate.

I seek time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Perhaps my good friend from California has not heard the news. The Pentagon has now said that we are indeed enmeshed in a civil war and we now have a plan B. What we are going to do now is deal with insurgents so that we can try to pacify them and get pockets of peace somewhere, here and there in Iraq, never mind the Iraqi Government we have been holding up all this time.

This may be news to him, but as far as I am concerned, the Pentagon has really called it straight, and I consider it a break with what the White House has been telling us.

We know the President said time and again he would never negotiate with any insurgents. Well, that was yesterday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I have one other besides myself.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

I am.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Chair of the committee (Mr. Obey) to respond.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I will yield 30 seconds to Mr. Obey to respond.

I will yield 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 437 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. 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 this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2317, the Lobbying Transparency Act of 2007, and H.R. 2316, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

The resolution provides that H.R. 2317 is to be considered under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration, except for those arising under clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

The resolution also provides for consideration of H.R. 2316, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration, except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order and provides the appropriate waivers for five amendments, three by Democratic Members and two by Republican Members.

Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 and the Lobbying Transparency Act as well and this rule.

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act continues the new direction charted by this new Congress and builds upon the strongest ethics reforms ever adopted in the United States Congress.

Last November, the Congress was reinvigorated by the election of a large number of new Members, who were sent here by the American people to fight for reform and change and to sweep aside a previous Congress that was defined by scandal and corruption.

On the first day of this new Congress, the new reform-minded Members, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter, ushered in the broadest ethics and lobbying revisions since the Watergate era. The ethics watchdog group Public Citizen called the new ethics rules sweeping in scope and a signal that the Democratic majority in the House appears committed to serious lobbying and ethics reform.

Those new rules include a ban on gifts from lobbyists and organizations that employ lobbyists, a ban on trips that are privately funded by lobbyists and organizations that employ lobbyists, prohibition on Members and staff flying on private corporate jets, an end to the K Street Project, and a new requirement that all earmarks with congressional sponsors be disclosed to the public.

Then 3 weeks after the adoption of that very broad and aggressive ethics reform rules package, the House acted again on ethics reform and stripped the congressional pensions of Members of Congress who commit any of a number of crimes during their tenure, including bribery, conspiracy and perjury.

This new Congress took that direct action to change the culture of Congress at a time when Members of the previous Congress were pleading guilty to living off gifts they had received from lobbyists in exchange for votes and earmarks. Through our bold and expanding ethics package, this new Congress is tackling the cozy relationships between lobbyists and lawmakers.

Next, Mr. Speaker, these bills that we will consider today, the one for open government and honest leadership and transparency in lobbying, and this rule, provide rigorous new requirements for lobbyist disclosure and enforcement of lobbying laws and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, we don't adopt reforms for reform's sake alone. We adopt these reforms and we fight for change because it matters to our constituents and our neighbors back home.

For over a year I have been sitting down with seniors trying to work through the disaster of Medicare part D that was crafted in the last Congress. Fortunately, this bill adds a House rule prohibiting Members and senior staff from negotiating future employment or salaries and requires public recusal of Members on any matters where there may be a conflict of interest.

You see, Mr. Speaker, that Medicare part D that is so costly and confusing to our seniors and puts all the benefit on the side of HMOs and Big Pharma, and puts all of the burden on our seniors, was crafted by a Member of Congress who, shortly thereafter, after he helped write the Medicare drug bill, went on to become the head lobbyist for PhRMA in what I think was a crass violation of the public trust. Fortunately, this bill will tackle that problem.

This bill also makes it a Federal crime for Members and senior staff to influence employment decisions or practices of private entities for partisan political gain. Some people have called this the K Street Project. The K Street Project was an initiative by the Republican Party to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials.

The bill also requires quarterly instead of semiannual disclosure of lobbying reports. It requires in the age of the Internet for lobbying reports to be filed electronically and be made available in a free, searchable, downloadable database within 48 hours of being filed.

It also requires the Clerk of the House to post travel disclosures on the Internet. This follows the scandals of Jack Abramoff. We must allow greater transparency into the trips and financial holdings of Members of Congress. Former Members of Congress took lavish trips to Scotland with a lobbyist that had minimal disclosure, and these new provisions will bring more such light to congressional disclosure forms.

Through this legislation we will also increase civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply with lobbying disclosure requirements. And it does much, much more.

Mr. Speaker, we must continue to fight for high ethical standards in government to end the culture of corruption in Washington so that our neighbors and folks we represent know they can count on us to stand up for them against powerful special interests and trust that congressional Members work in the public interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the ethics reformer of Ohio and my colleague on the Rules Committee, Ms. Sutton.

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman has closed for his side.

That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Well, my interest, Mr. Speaker, is keeping this legislation on track. The American people spoke loud and clear in November. They called on us to fight for reform and change.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act and the Lobbying Transparency Act and this rule. Citizens deserve open and honest leadership. We must stay on track with lobbying reform. And after the scandals in past years, we will continue the fight for reform and change so that the American people trust that Members of Congress are making decisions that benefit our communities and our country, and not some powerful special interest with undue influence.

Unfortunately, there has been a price to pay for the culture of corruption. You can see it when you gas up at the pump. Big Oil has gotten millions and billions in tax breaks, while people that we represent pay higher gas prices. And in Florida, the big oil companies have been granted a right to drill off our beautiful coastline.

You can see it when our seniors are pushed into privatized Medicare. The HMOs get a slush fund, and seniors pay more for health care.

You can see it when students and their families pay more for student loans because of sweetheart deals. The special interests get tax breaks, and our kids pay off higher debt.

Mr. Speaker, today we will keep our promise to the American people to fight for change and reform. When our neighbors and the folks back home send us to Washington, they rightly expect their representatives to act in the public interest and not in the interest of well-paid lobbyists with undue influence.

I urge my colleagues to build on the strongest ethics reform ever adopted in the Congress, what we started on day one in this new Congress.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

I object.