Encouraging each institution of higher education in the country to seek membership in the Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) Consortium.

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 begin by thanking my good friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And I congratulate her and all of our colleagues on their membership in the 111th Congress.

As we have heard from the speeches delivered by the Speaker and the Republican leader, today marks the start of the 111th Congress, a new beginning for the first branch and for the people's House.

As was stated, 2 weeks from today we are going to be making history with the inauguration of Barack Obama. President-elect Obama has already reached out to congressional Republicans, expressing his desire to work with us in this new Congress.

We all know very well what an honorable campaign Mr. Obama ran. While I didn't support his candidacy, I, like many of my colleagues and fellow Americans, was inspired by his message of hope, unity, and change for the future.

He laid out a vision that replaces bitterness with bipartisanship, cynicism with a sincere commitment to a brighter future.

Of course, there is a great divergence of opinion on the details of exactly how we reach that brighter future. Congressional Republicans have our agenda. We feel very strongly about it. We are committed more than ever to the principles for which we stand. But we wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Obama that the way forward is through open, inclusive debate, a strong spirit of bipartisanship and the sincere pursuit of common ground.

Unfortunately, the high-minded rhetoric of the Presidential campaign only highlights the pure cynicism of this rules package that we are considering today. The Democratic leadership of this House is poised to consider, as its very first legislative act of this Congress, a rules package that literally shreds the Obama vision.

I am going to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The package that we are going to be voting on today literally shreds the Obama vision. Fourteen days before he is even inaugurated into office, the President-elect's plan for unity and bipartisanship is being obstructed by his own party.

This rules package takes the abysmal record of the last Congress and actually makes it more restrictive. You will hear a lot today about arcane procedural tactics and wonder how it has any relevance to the problems that we face as a nation. But these changes, Mr. Speaker, have enormous consequences for the conduct and outcome of our policy debates.

Mr. Speaker, process is substance. As we tackle enormously important issues like, as everyone has said, getting our economy back on track, we cannot achieve a good outcome without a good process. We are very attuned to the concept of history being made right now and 2 weeks from today, so perhaps we should look at history.

The motion to recommit, as we know it today, was granted to the minority 100 years ago following a rebellion against the most dictatorial Speaker of the last century, Joseph Gurney ``Uncle Joe'' Cannon. This motion ensures that the minority gets at least one opportunity, one opportunity to offer an amendment or an alternative. During the Democrats' 40-year reign, they routinely denied Republicans, often dozens of times in a Congress, the single bite at the apple, one opportunity to offer an alternative. Mr. Speaker, when we took the majority in 1995, we guaranteed the right of the motion to recommit, and we never, we never denied it.

This body has always been governed by majority rule. The majority has a number of tools at its disposal, not least of which is the Rules Committee itself, on which I am privileged to serve. That's how they advance their agenda. An effective majority can abide by the rules and traditions of the House and still succeed legislatively.

By contrast, in the 110th Congress, the Democratic leadership chose, instead, to resort to procedural gimmickry to advance their agenda. They had every legislative advantage as the majority party, and yet they felt compelled to trample the traditions of the House, rather than build consensus or engage in actual deliberation. They went so far as to shut down the appropriations process to avoid open debate. Mr. Speaker, as for the motion to recommit, that one single opportunity, that one single opportunity for minority input, the Democratic leadership

frequently resorted to legislative tricks to deny it.

Now, the Democratic leadership is no longer content to shut down debate on an ad hoc basis. They are making it official with this rules package. The underlying resolution contains a host of new procedural gimmicks to stifle debate and to perpetuate partisanship. This resolution changes the rules of the House to formally limit, to formally limit, the motion to recommit. This limitation prevents any bill from being returned to committee for further deliberation. It restricts Members' ability to strip out tax increases. Apparently, the Democratic majority believes tax increases are sacred, but open debate is not sacred.

This rules package also manipulates our budget rules, once again, to protect tax increases, as well as to protect spending increases. You see, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership not only spent the last Congress shutting out Republicans, they also had to find clever ways to shut out fiscally conservative Democrats. Trying to build consensus within their own party was very time consuming. They learned their lesson, though. This rules package guts the budget rules that many Democrats hold so dear.

The laundry list of rules changes goes on. They cut term limits for committee chairmen, they scrap Medicare cost-containment measures. And if all this weren't enough, they include completely closed rules, completely closed rules for the two bills that will be considered later this week without ever having the Rules Committee meet. Apparently, the Democratic leadership scoured the House rules for accountability and transparency measures and systematically dismantled what they found.

So much, Mr. Speaker, for the Obama vision. While he is calling for the most transparent administration in our Nation's history, his congressional Democrats are launching the most closed Congress in history.

But I believe that President-elect Obama is sincere. Since the day he was elected, he has been reaching out to Republicans. He has called many of us individually to express a sincere desire to move beyond the divisiveness of politics and to work together. I can only imagine the chagrin at his own party, their attempt to undermine his best efforts. Today's rules package is a huge step backward. It sets the stage for even more closed, bitter, rancorous debate.

The next major item on the agenda is more than a $1 trillion stimulus package. Republican Leader John Boehner has laid out several modest, but critically important, requests for an open process. There should be public hearings. The text should be available online for a full week prior to a vote. There should be no special-interest earmarks.

These are commonsense guidelines that are widely supported by the American people. They understand that our response to the economic crisis is too important to allow it to be slapped together in secret behind closed doors and rammed through the House. Both Democrats and Republicans have a number of good ideas that should be considered and debated.

Today I will be pursuing an economic recovery package that focuses on pro-growth policies. I am introducing a trio of bills aimed at growing our economy by simplifying and reducing the tax burden on individuals and job creators, jump-starting our housing market and reviving the auto industry.

I hope we can move forward on these kinds of policies, but neither I nor my colleagues ask to prejudge the outcome of those debates. We simply ask that that debate take place.

Majority Leader Hoyer agrees, and said so on an interview that he had this past Sunday. We can only hope he is able to convince the Speaker to keep the process open and transparent. If her leadership's first legislative act of this Congress is any indication, it won't be a fruitful endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, today's new beginning is nothing more than a new low for the Democratic majority. Their cynicism and manipulation is all the more dismal against the backdrop of President-elect Obama's vision for hope, unity and change for the better. The Democratic majority's actions today do not represent change that fulfills hope. This is change that denies hope.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rules package.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Miami, the hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

I will say as I do that, Mr. Speaker, that we would never have contemplated denying the then-minority what is being denied us under this measure.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the spirit of the debate here, refusal to yield, is indicative of exactly what this rules package consists of.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to our very good friend from Springfield, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Richmond, Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished Republican whip.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very good friend from Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), the Chair of the Republican Conference.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentlewoman how many speakers she has remaining on her side, and how much time is remaining on both sides for this debate?

At this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from San Antonio, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Chester Springs, Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Roanoke, Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, let me just inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our great, relatively new Member from New Orleans (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that it doesn't appear that we have any other speakers on our side.

Is the gentlewoman prepared to close debate on hers?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, we've had a fascinating debate here. I've repeatedly asked my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to yield to me so that we could engage in an exchange on this, and no one chose to yield to me at all, indicating exactly what this rules package is all about. We've repeatedly had academics quoted here over the past hour about the use of ``promptly'' and the fact that it kills legislation. Time and time again from the Chair, the Speaker of the House has ruled that a measure that is recommitted to a committee promptly is not killing the bill. Until the Chair says that, it is not killing the bill.

We know that the last Congress was the single-most restrictive, closed Congress in the history of the Republic, and it is very, very sad to have this sacrosanct right being obliterated that is granted to the minority, as Thomas Jefferson outlined in his manual, talking about the procedures and the rights that the minority should have. It is outrageous in the wake of Barack Obama's pledge to the American people that he wanted to have greater transparency and accountability.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of this debate on the package, I'll be offering a motion to commit, which could be the majority's last opportunity to freely decide the form of the motion to recommit. Included in the motion will be an amendment. This amendment is the minority's attempt to restore some of the Obama vision of openness, inclusiveness and transparency to the underlying rules package.

First, it would restore the motion to recommit, which I've discussed. It is an important tool that ensures that the minority gets at least one chance, one bite at the apple, so that 100 million Americans represented by Members of the minority here can be heard.

Second, it would restore term limits for committee chairmanships.

Third, it would change committee membership ratios so that all committees, except the Rules and Ethics Committees, reflect the ratio of Democrats and Republicans in the House. This would help to ensure that the 100 million Americans, as I said, who are represented by Republicans would have some kind of say in this process.

Fourth and finally, it would require that all committee votes be available online within 48 hours, a proposal from the Republican Study Committee.

At the end of the last Congress, the Appropriations Committee filed reports on bills that had been ordered reported months before. The public should not have to wait to know how their Member voted in committee while committee chairmen dragged their feet. These four improvements are about nothing more than exactly what Barack Obama talked about--transparency, accountability and fairness.

Today's historic rules package rolls back reforms made a century ago this month by a bipartisan working group of Members rising against the repressive rule of Speaker Joe Cannon. Two of the reforms that were codified during that historic revolt on opening day in 1909 were a motion of recommittal for the minority party and an increased threshold to set aside Calendar Wednesday. Ironically, we find ourselves here in the same well 100 years

later, fighting to maintain these simple rights and guarantees which have for a century, Mr. Speaker, safeguarded this House from the rise of another tyrannical Speaker.

So it is in that light that I ask Members to join me in supporting the motion to commit. Let us not undo what has been done. Let us learn from our past. Let us move forward with the hope and comity inspired by Barack Obama. Let's show the world that, in this House, the democratic process is alive and well no matter how large the majority. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to commit.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

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

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

I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Maryland for his statement and yielding me the time to present the opening day's rules package for the 111th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, rarely has our great Nation faced such grave challenges. Millions of Americans are without jobs and consequently also without health insurance. Our troops are fighting two wars overseas. And as our economy spirals downward, Americans from coast to coast are struggling to make ends meet.

But there is reason to hope. In fewer than 14 days, a new President will be sworn in. And President-elect Barack Obama, the House Democrats and I, and my Republican friends are committed to rolling up our sleeves and getting to work immediately to solve the critical challenges that face our Nation.

On this day I am honored to address the House at the beginning of the 111th Congress to present the rules package that will govern this body as we work to meet the needs of American families over the next 2 years.

It is the responsibility of the majority to protect and enhance the integrity of the institution, and that is what this rules package does. Through building upon the important rules changes that Democrats implemented during the last Congress, we are keeping our commitment to the American people to restore accountability and honesty to government.

In the 110th Congress, Democrats put forth critical measures to restore transparency to the House. We banned gifts from lobbyists. We prohibited the use of corporate jets. We mandated ethics training for all House employees. We ensured transparency for earmarks by requiring the full disclosure of earmarks in all bills and conference reports. We established an independent Office of Congressional Ethics. And today we are building on our commitment to the American people to further strengthen the integrity of this institution in the 111th Congress.

By closing the loophole that allowed ``lame duck'' Members to negotiate employment contracts in secret, we are opening the doors of Congress and shedding light upon the process. By codifying the additional earmark reforms adopted mid-term in the 110th Congress, coupled with the ongoing rules that required the Members' signatures and their reasons for their requests, we are permanently strengthening earlier comprehensive reforms,

resulting in even further transparency and accountability in the earmark process.

By making commonsense changes to the motion to recommit, we are helping Congress to function more effectively while preserving the minority's legitimate right to present their policy alternatives through offering a motion that amends the bill or a ``straight'' motion that sends the bill back to committee without amendment.

By removing reference to term limits for committee Chairs from this package, we take away what was from the first a political consideration to eliminate that from the official House rules where they don't belong. And by maintaining strong PAYGO rules, we are demonstrating our strong commitment to fiscal discipline.

These important measures make good sense to protect the integrity of this institution and to enable Congress to help America get back on track. Today, we are not only harnessing the belief that we can continue to restore integrity and accountability to Congress, we are also laying down a strong foundation for House action on the grave challenges that face this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker and my friends on both sides of the aisle, the American people know exactly what's at stake over the next few years, which is why they have resoundingly raised their voices for change, and Democrats are listening. We are ready to help put Americans back to work by investing in job creation initiatives, strengthening our economy. We are ready to fix our broken health care system so that every citizen can get quality, affordable health care that they desperately need and are entitled to. We are ready to cultivate a clean energy economy by turning wind into energy, energy investments into innovation, and innovation into good-paying American jobs.

We are ready to begin responsibly withdrawing troops from Iraq, ready to ensure quality education for our young people, ready to continue making the tough choices that the American people elected us to make.

Yet in order for us to begin addressing these pressing challenges, we must ensure that Congress continues to put integrity and accountability at the heart of our daily actions. I can think of no better way to do that than by adopting these amendments to the House rules.

Mr. Speaker, it will be a long and difficult journey to strengthen our economy, to reform the health care system, and create a clean energy future worthy of our children and grandchildren. But the rules package before us today is an important first step, one that will ensure integrity in Congress as we move forward on this pivotal path.

It is time to reinvigorate America. It's time to make history. And let us begin.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this commonsense rules package to allow the House to operate more effectively and productively in solving the challenges facing our great Nation while strengthening our integrity in Congress.

Section-by-Section of Rule Changes--111th Congress

The changes in the standing rules of the House made by

House Resolution 5 include the following:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the vice chair of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chair of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, please let me yield myself 1 or 2 minutes. One minute, I think, would be sufficient. I hadn't planned to do this, but I think the Record requires it.

I want to quote from three of our Republican Members for whom I have great affection and an awful lot of respect. The first one, Representative Tom Davis, who is not with us this year, stated the minority's intent to use ``promptly'' motions to kill legislation during debate on a motion to recommit H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. And let me quote him: ``Let me just say to my colleagues, I think the gun ban in the District is ridiculous, and would join my colleagues in overturning it. The problem is this motion doesn't do that. Instead of bringing it back to the floor forthwith for a vote and send it to the Senate, it simply sends it back to the committee, essentially killing it.''

Representative Joe Barton of Texas likened motions to recommit promptly to gimmicks during debate on H.R. 3693, the Children's Health Insurance Program: ``I will tell my friends on the majority side, it's not going to be a gimmick. I think it will say forthwith, which means if we adopt it, we vote on it.''

I yield myself 30 seconds.

During the debate on Representative Paul Ryan's motion to recommit on H.R. 5501, the Lantos-Hyde HIV/AIDS Act of 2008, Mr. Ryan acknowledged that ``promptly'' motions are intended to kill bills. ``This recommit motion is not intended to kill the bill. This is a forthwith recommit,'' he said.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

I don't have any further requests for time, or at least not from anybody who is presently on the floor, so I will reserve to close.

I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, without any question, all of us who serve in this House love it. We understand our responsibilities to our constituents as well as to this institution. I want to make it absolutely clear, unequivocally clear, that no intention here today is to in any way impede the minority rights. We will defend them to the death.

But we would have to be Alice in Wonderland, saying that she would be able to believe six impossible things before breakfast, if we gave serious thought for one moment to the possibility that a motion to recommit promptly is anything other than a way to kill a bill.

What we are trying to do here is to expedite the process to get the Obama agenda, which apparently we are in solid agreement on, moved forward because the American people are crying out for it. It must be done. We want to do this fairly. We want to do this equitably. I hope we can do it with minds that meet on all of these subjects, but we must remove some of the gimmicks which have done nothing but subvert the will of the House.

So I am really happy to close with this. I hope that everybody in the House--all of the new Members whom I congratulate, people who have been here for some time and those of us who have been moderately here for a long time--will all, please, get together today. There is nothing in here that hurts anyone. We are simply attempting to move forward the business of the United States of America for which we swore an oath not an hour ago.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Motion to Commit

Thank you. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this.

It was interesting here to watch the exchange on the floor where my good friend, the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, had to instruct my friend from Texas--I guess who's left the floor--about who is a socialist and who isn't.

It's no small point that people on the other side who are offering their world view don't actually know who our allies are and who runs two of the top eight economies in the world. It's the same sort of disregard for facts that has encouraged them to willfully misrepresent the costs of coming to grips with global warming and carbon pollution. And in fact, the chair of the Global Climate Committee Program at MIT had to send a letter to the Republican leader explaining that they are misleading people by attaching a $3,000 figure, indicating that that is grossly out of proportion and depends entirely on what would happen with a much smaller burden.

The point is, under the progressive budget, under the other Democratic alternatives, these moneys would be returned to people to reduce their energy costs, create green jobs. There was a time when conservatives would be worried about cost overruns in the Department of Defense and wasteful spending on Cold War weapons. That time is not now.

It's why I support these budgets and urge the rejection of the Republican alternatives.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

Today, you are going to have an opportunity to listen to debate from our friends on the other side of the aisle on an alternative that seems too good to be true, and in fact it is, because they are proposing today a budget alternative that they never imposed when they had control of all the levers of power: Additional tax cuts that are outmoded and discredited, and we can't afford; and, most important, cutting aid to Americans most in need, students, the elderly, the sick, disabled, assaulting our environment, the elements that are so important as we are fighting, with our new President, to try and get the economy back on track and moving forward.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a distinguished member of our leadership.

It is interesting that my friend from Louisiana didn't vote for those budget deficits in the past because he wasn't in Congress. But if he had been here and joined with the Republican majority, he would have voted for them. That is what got us into this fix.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a new Member who wasn't a part of this in the past, but is working on solutions in the future.

I'm happy to yield on your time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I will take 15 seconds, if I may, before recognizing the gentleman from New York.

What I said was the gentleman didn't vote for it because he wasn't here. But if he was and voted with the majority of Republicans, he would have been part of that problem.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I yield myself 15 seconds just to point out to my good friend from Georgia that he confuses the marginal rate with the rate that corporations actually pay. Thirty-five percent is the marginal rate. If he looks at how much American corporations actually pay, because almost nobody pays the marginal rate because of the loopholes, it is down to about 5 percent. It's the second lowest of the top 20 economies.

I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the real State of Washington, not Oregon, and a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Larsen.

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining for both sides.

Thank you.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Madam Chair, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Chair, I will yield myself the remainder of the time.

Thank you.

It is interesting listening to my other friends because, when they had their hands on the levers of power--of the Presidency and of Congress--they engineered the massive debt that the President inherited with a combination of tax cuts for people who needed it the least and with a rate of spending increase that was greater than Lyndon Johnson's in the Great Society. Not only was it greater than Bill Clinton's spending, but it was greater than Lyndon Johnson's in the Great Society.

Now, all of a sudden, when they're out of power, they're suggesting that they're going to do something that they never did when they had control. They're proposing a massive, across-the-board cut of about $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Now, this is serious money, dealing with serious programs that the American people count on, and they count on them today more than ever before: Pell Grants, food stamps, nutrition activities, health care for low-income people, Medicare.

Madam Chair, the range of activities that would be subjected to the budget knife--again, that they never did when they were in control but that they propose to do now--would have the impact of scaling down our growth and our activities, and it would put the burden on those who can least afford it.

When it comes to taxes, well, they're back to the same old story. They want to make permanent tax cuts that we found out were not affordable in the form that they passed them, and worse, they would increase taxes on about a quarter of the Americans who are lower income Americans.

Madam Chair, in the Democratic budget, there are no tax increases this year. We understand that it's not appropriate to raise taxes.

I will yield on your time.

In this budget that we are going to be offering up, there are no tax increases. The House of Representatives, in its wisdom, did recently approve a tobacco tax increase that provides health care for 4 million American children, something that the last Congress passed, and there were bipartisan votes who supported that because that's good for Americans.

What we are seeing in paychecks this month across America is that 95 percent of the people are witnessing the promise of a reduction in taxes being delivered by President Obama and this Congress. This is for 95 percent of the American people.

I find it interesting the rhetoric about bureaucrats running health care. In fact, my friend from North Carolina just pointed out that they protect the bureaucrats running health care for veterans. They protect the veterans with the program.

I will yield on your time only. I have very few minutes left.

Madam Chair, health care is one of these critical areas. There is nothing in the Democratic budget that suggests we're going

to turn over to some shadowy, bureaucratic influence a bureaucratic mechanism that's going to control Americans' health care.

What President Obama has suggested and what we've been discussing in our Ways and Means Committee, for instance, is having an opportunity for more choices for Americans, including some that are subsidized by the Federal Government to help fill some of these gaps.

It's interesting that, on one hand, they'll talk about something that isn't true--the shadowy bureaucratic control of health care--while they kind of conveniently forget that some of the best health care in America is provided by government, itself, by government bureaucrats, if you will, in the Veterans Administration. It's a little embarrassing to watch this schizophrenia that our friends are engaged in.

One of the most insidious portions of both of these budgets is to be found in taking back the recovery funds that States across America are counting on for economic recovery. I suggest that's a mistake as well and another reason to reject the Republican alternative.

Madam Chairwoman, we come to this floor with a sobering recognition: $657 billion spent on the war in Iraq. Certainly we would not take one cent away from

our soldiers, their care, the care of their families. But $657 billion on a war that generated the kind of controversy and questionable results that the Iraq war created puts us in the position we're in today.

For at the same time that we were fighting a war, the last administration saw no reason to ask America to sacrifice. And so it gave these enormous--that administration gave these enormous tax cuts that put us in this very difficult position of reaching $1 trillion in debt.

What we do today with this budget--and I stand here as a vice chair and one believing in the principles of this administration of helping America restore itself in energy, health care, education--this budget, the Progressive Caucus budget, puts more money to extinguish poverty, it cuts the tax cuts that have been given to the rich, and it invests those moneys in education, climate control, as well as providing for our veterans, and, yes, it does something enormously unique: it provides a pathway for rehabilitation for ex-offenders. It intervenes with respect to youths who are involved in crime, and it provides the resources to fully fund what we call the Second Chance bill, allowing ex-offenders to be rehabilitated to go back to their families and get their families off of welfare.

Research has shown that targeting funding towards intervention rather than incarceration is more effective than reducing crime and saves the taxpayers' money in the long run.

This is a bill for the people of America. I ask my colleagues to support it and to support the President's budget.

Madam Chair, I would like to rise in support of the budget put forward today by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This alternative budget combats the worsening poverty and Hurricane Katrina redress, renews federal commitment to fully address the on-going suffering of the victims of Hurricane Katrina and help cut the poverty rate in America by 50 percent during the next decade with increased funding for decent affordable housing, anti-hunger programs, and more quality child care. This Progressive budget restores the 21st century social contract and safety net; Economic Stimulus #2 ($300 billion), which provides more immediate help to overcome the ``Iraq recession'' through increased federal assistance for unemployment insurance, food stamps, Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) payments to states, and housing assistance.

The Congressional Progressive Budget targets waste, fraud, and abuse in federal government, starting with Pentagon savings and projects enactment of the Common Sense Budget Act, which would save at least $60 billion/year on largely obsolete Cold War weapons systems plus billions more in waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD spending identified by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO).

This Progressive budget repeals the Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent of taxpayers--due to expire in 2010 regardless and beyond-- savings of at least $222 billion and cracks down on corporate welfare while projecting elimination of various corporate tax loopholes such as deductibility of advertising for junk mail, imaging purposes, etc. and special tax breaks for oil and gas industry and other extraction industries.

This alternative budget shifts some spending and increases other non- military spending to fight root causes of terrorism--21st century diplomacy, meeting basic human needs (e.g. HIV/AIDS/TB, universal basic education for all); Global Warming and Energy Independence, sustained investments in renewable energy and energy independence, including needed extension of production and investment tax credits. This budget includes full funding of authorized levels for green jobs and pathways out of poverty grants. In addition, climate policy should significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a manner which supports economic security and health of low-income and moderate-income families and communities of color and education for all--fully fund Elementary and Secondary Education Act and IDEA prospectively and improve Teacher Corps and job training. This ``progressive'' budget includes Medicare for All--affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans, starting with full funding of SCHIP to cover every child in America.

Included in this budget is Guaranteed Veterans' Health Care--which ensures whatever federal funding is needed to provide health care (including mental health) for all America's veterans (including but not limited to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan military operations; support for the Middle-Class--increase funding to protect fundamental worker rights, enforce fair credit and lending practices, and promote livable wages and safe workplaces; and rebuild America's Communities-- substantially increase funding for Community Development Block Grants, Social Services Block Grants, and community policing, and authorize release of funds available through the gas tax to clean-up leaking underground storage tanks that threaten the drinking water of nearly half of all Americans. This progressive budget increases funding supporting the Office of Environmental Justice and environmental justice programs, including community grants and a review of the EPA and other agencies' policies to ensure they are protective of minority and low-income communities. Madam Chair, we need to pass a real budget for America that's forward thinking and ``progressive'' that will get us back on the right track.

I am committed to what the President is committed to. All of us who believe that there needs to be a new day in America are committed to a new era of responsibility renewing America's promise.

And my good friends on the other side of the aisle are in direct contrast to that because if we pass this budget, the Republican Study Group, study caucus, we will see a continuation of crumbling bridges, workers and veterans waiting months or years for benefits, the very veterans, 167,000 plus, that are returning back from the Iraq war, many who will be returning back from Afghanistan, the very families that we see in our community, we will see them missing out on the necessary resources to provide a new era of responsibility.

One of the important aspects of this legislation, our budget, focuses on protecting families.

Let me share one vision; protect families' financial health. Our budget, the President's budget, has a plan that must reduce the growing premiums and other costs American citizens and businesses pay for health care. People must be protected from bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness. We have a placeholder, a place to address the question of reforming our health care. We have a provision or a concept to make health care coverage affordable. The plan must reduce high administrative costs, unnecessary tests and services, waste and other inefficiencies.

In the President's budget he believes in renewing America. The budget that we have on the floor now believes in undermining the health care safety net. It does not have the details that are necessary. It cuts key services. It certainly doesn't provide a bridge, an ongoing bridge into the 21st century.

My friends, we need to move forward with the President's vision, and we need to oppose the RSC budget.

The former minority whip has just proved the opposite of his case. In the one instance that he refers to where a bill came out of the committee which I chair, we were prepared to accept that amendment on the floor. It was offered promptly. We asked if it could be done, as we often did, as forthwith, and it could have been adopted on the floor. In that case it wasn't 6 days, it took several weeks, because we cannot drop everything and get to a bill.

Now, understand that when a bill is sent back to a committee, all the rules apply. And, by the way, nothing stops you from making this a revolving door, Mr. Speaker. People can keep doing this.

The motion to recommit, Members have said on the other side they want to be able to offer an alternative. Nothing in this proposal in any way diminishes their ability to offer an alternative. They are fully able to offer an alternative as an amendment. What they will be losing here is a legislative Ponzi scheme in which you pretend to be something you are not.

Here is the way it works: If the minority wants under any bill to offer a motion to recommit, as the rule will now read if this passes, they can offer a motion to recommit with a germane amendment that is binding, and if it is adopted, the bill is amended on the spot. But they often don't want to do that. Often their amendments are really disguises for opposition to the bill in general. So they take an amendment that would pass virtually unanimously because it is so popular and say it should be done in a way that sends the bill back to committee rather than to amend the bill.

So let's be very clear. Their ability to offer a motion that is an amendment

to the bill is in no way diminished by this. It is in no way changed. It is exactly the same. What they lose is the ability to take something that would pass overwhelmingly if they would allow a serious vote on it and use it as a way to get a bill sent back to committee for purposes of delay.

Now, the gentleman is right. It doesn't always work. Sometimes the bill survives. Sometimes it doesn't. There is often a traffic jam on the floor. There are also cases where timeliness is important, where the administration may be about to do something we want to stop them from doing and we want to be able to move reasonably quickly.

I will say this with regard to where he said bills came from nowhere. The bills where this tactic, this Ponzi scheme has been used, on bills that have come out of the Financial Services Committee, were not those bills. They were bills where there had been open amendment processes, where I have often gone to the Rules Committee and asked for amendments to be in order.

In fact, in my experience, the committee of jurisdiction leadership has no input into these motions. I have asked. There are amendments offered on the floor that were never offered in committee when they had a chance to be offered, and I will guarantee you that is a fact, because the purpose is not to amend the bill. If you were trying to amend the bill, you offer the motion to recommit in a way that amends it on the floor. That is not good enough for them, because they are not interested in substance. They are interested in this game playing and this charade--well, it is not a charade, because that is talking. They are interested in this pretense whereby you try to slow a bill down because you aren't willing to vote against it.

So if this rules package passes, there will be two options for the minority: They can move to send the bill back to committee, that can still be done, the motion to send it back to committee will still be there; or they can move to amend it on the floor. Their ability to offer an alternative is in no ways changed.

What they can't do is to pretend to be amending the bill by putting forward very popular language that would pass overwhelmingly, but doing it in a way that in effect sends the bill back to committee which doesn't allow the House to adopt that amendment, and then they want to be able to say Members weren't in favor of this noncontroversial piece.

So it is a legislative Ponzi scheme. It is a pretense. It is something that ought to be abolished. It does not add at all to the legitimacy of debate.

Let's adopt this rules change. The minority will have the two options, and that is all that democracy requires.

The gentleman from Wisconsin said, why will the majority not in some instances agree with the minority? That's the problem. We are talking about cases where we in the majority have tried to agree with the minority, and they would not be agreed with. They would not take yes for an answer.

This is the issue: if they offer a motion to recommit and it says forthwith, and they win the vote, the bill is amended. If they offer an amendment to a bill, not having offered it in committee, not having gone to the Rules Committee to ask it to be on the floor, if they take a noncontroversial popular issue and offer it as the motion to recommit, but say it should be sent to the committee and reported back promptly, we have tried to agree with them, and they have refused. This literally is a way to not take yes for an answer; it's a way to take something to which the majority would like to agree.

I have been here when I, and when the majority leader has said, in such a

situation, could we get unanimous consent to simply agree to that now, and the minority has said no.

Well, people have a right not to be agreed with. People have a right not to be agreeable. Some indulge that right more than others. But you don't have a right to refuse to be agreed with, and then complain that you weren't agreed with. And that's all that's at stake here.

So, yes, there are times when the majority should say yes to the minority, and that should be determined by the floor. What we're saying is the minority should not manufacture a situation in which there is no way to say yes to them because their goal is patently not to amend that particular bill, because if it was, they would accept the request that that amendment be accepted. Instead, it is to put a bill back to committee because they're afraid to vote against it. That's the issue.

This is used as a way to send bills back to committee to avoid votes. And this leaves, this package, the minority, fully able to offer any motion to recommit or send it back to committee. It just says they can't play games.