Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act. As our colleague, Chairman Hyde, said yesterday in the House Rules Committee, this is the single most important piece of legislation that has come through the International Relations Committee this year.

We must do everything in our power to pass it today. India, the world's largest democracy, and the United States, the world's oldest democracy, must come together and strengthen their friendship. After centuries of an unsteady relationship, there has been dramatic improvement starting with the Clinton administration and continuing today.

This bill tells India that we believe in them, and that we want to support them just like they have consistently supported us. The civilian nuclear initiative will deepen the U.S.-India strategic partnership. The initiative reflects U.S. trust in India as a global tactical partner, and indicates our admiration for India's democratic traditions, her commitment to tolerance and her commitment to freedom.

I, as well as many of our colleagues, have had the great pleasure of traveling to the country of India on several different occasions. Any person who goes to India recognizes the crucial necessity of clean energy.

This legislation will provide productions of clean energy, and can potentially reduce further pollution on the environment through decreasing the dependency on fossil fuels.

Civil nuclear cooperation is vital to the development of a clean and safe environment for our Indian friends. As our distinguished colleague, the ranking member of International Relations, Tom Lantos, said in the Rules Committee yesterday, India is a nuclear nonproliferator.

India has pledged to identify and separate her civil and military nuclear facilities and programs and place the civil portions under IAEA safeguards. I would urge my colleagues who have some hesitancy about this legislation to pay particular attention to that particular part of the legislation.

This bill will bring India closer to the international nonproliferation mainstream. India has ensured that 65 percent of her current and planned power reactors will come under IAEA safeguards. This, in the legislation, would rise to as high as 90 percent in future years as India constructs new reactors.

Without this initiative, 81 percent of India's current power reactors and all future power programs would remain unclear. Energy power and clean air are necessities for the Republic of India, especially because the excessive harm of global warming that is affecting India and indeed the world every day.

The amount of carbon dioxide emitted through the combustion of fossil fuels, otherwise known as the carbon footprint, is constantly upsetting this region.

Their need for alternative sources of energy is staggering, and we must pass this legislation to make a change in this region possible. India, America's strongest ally in the Southeast Asia region, is on the verge of an energy crisis. India is the sixth largest energy consumer in the world.

But in order to maintain their strong economic growth, India's energy consumption will need to increase substantially. The facts are astounding, and civilian nuclear cooperation is the only way India's energy can remain secure.

On a note of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Sonal Patel, a young woman who is interning in my office this summer. She worked hard on this issue, and she and other young Indian nationals who are interning here on the Hill this summer worked very actively, along with my friends, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Pallone and others, to bring to the floor the legislation dealing with the condemnation of the horrible bombing incidents that took place in India.

This is a year where many of our interns are demonstrating staff-like work, and certainly, she qualifies in that category. The facts are astounding, and civilian nuclear cooperation is the only way India's energy can remain secure.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/ 2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and former mayor of Cleveland.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield to my good friend from New Jersey, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Pallone, 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield myself such time as I may consume; and I am going to take just a small amount of time hoping that colleagues who have demonstrated an interest would have time to get to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has not been mentioned by anyone that I believe that this legislation will assist in is providing safe reactors.

I had the misfortune and at the same time distinguished privilege to serve as the lead election monitor of the elections in Belarus, and while there I had an opportunity to see the horrible effects of a nuclear disaster. Some folks who remember Chernobyl think of it as Ukrainian and Russian in terms of the damage that was done, but the downwind aspects of that disaster fell on Belarusians, and it was devastating, and the effects of that are still showing.

We have had, with the exception of the Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania, extremely safe nuclear reactors in the United States, and our technology, indeed, some of technology in the world, may very well provide for even safer reactors. Thus, bringing India under the aegis of the IAEA can only assist in providing safe reactors.

Additionally, as we well know, Indian scientists are extremely resourceful. The residual from nuclear technology has produced the waste that the world needs to determine how best to handle. I believe, without knowing, nor do I think this legislation standing alone will cause that to occur, but I believe that Indian scientists, working with others throughout the world, may very well assist in developing the technology that will handle the nuclear waste that is such a tremendous problem, not only for this country, but indeed the world.

So there are other benefits that may be derived from this legislation, in addition to civilian pursuits that will help to reduce the carbon footprint.

Mr. Speaker, I did take enough time to let one of my colleagues arrive, and that said, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my classmate and good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, without further closing, in light of the fact that I have already, I yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 921, condemning the provocations by terrorist organizations on Israel's northern and southern borders.

The actions of the terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, in Lebanon, and Hamas, in Gaza, against Israel are unconscionable. Instead of working towards peace, these terrorist organizations have chosen to perpetuate the violence. Unprovoked attacks on Israel's borders, murdering Israeli soldiers, taking Israeli hostages and showering rockets targeting and killing Israeli civilians are not furthering any legitimate goal.

I am pleased to see that many of the world's leaders have publicly recognized that the crisis in the Middle East was deliberately incited by terrorist organizations. I applaud the leaders of the world's top industrial nations' collaborative statement on July 16 condemning the terrorists: ``These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos and provoke a wider conflict. The extremists must immediately halt their attacks.''

I also congratulate the Arab nations, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan for their willingness to openly criticize Hezbollah's attacks on Israel's northern border. I am in full support of their efforts to speak out against Hezbollah's recent assaults against Israel.

Israel's actions over the past week must be viewed in a broader context. It should be recognized that in response to Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005, as well as its committed plan to pull out completely from the West Bank, Israel has met only violence. Since 2000, Hezbollah has fired hundreds of rockets at civilian areas and kidnapped and murdered Israeli soldiers. Since September 2005, terrorist groups in Gaza have launched over 1,000 rocket attacks at Israeli cities. Previously, Israel exhibited restraint and refused to respond to these aggressions with any significant counterattack. Now, in light of the current unprovoked kidnappings by Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel is warranted to act appropriately to free the captured soldiers and to defend her citizens.

Now is the time for the Lebanese Government to abide by the U.N.'s rules. In refusing to disarm Hezbollah as required by U.N. Resolution 1559, the Lebanese Government is choosing to openly ignore the decree of the international community. Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora should accept responsibility and take immediate action against the terrorist group which Lebanon harbors. I support the resolutions that call on the United Nations to help the Prime Minister and his government to achieve these goals.

Now is also the time for the Hamas government to accept accountability for the actions of its terrorist organization. As the elected government of the Palestinian people, they have a duty to tell the terrorists to release the soldier they captured, halt the relentless rocket fire aimed at Israeli civilians and end their encouragement of terrorist acts against Israel.

But neither the Palestinian nor the Lebanese Government are wholly responsible for these recent provocations against Israel. There is a much greater strategic dimension to the Hamas-Hezbollah offensive. The terrorist organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas, are unquestionably sponsored and guided by the Iranian and Syrian Governments.

Iranian and Syrian support of these attacks will not be rewarded. The current bloodshed of innocent Israeli and Lebanese civilians will not strengthen their governments' positions. As sponsors of terror they will be condemned and held accountable for their actions.

Israel must have the right to defend her civilians from ongoing missile attacks, whether they arise from Lebanon or the Gaza Strip. Like the United States and other sovereign nations, Israel is justified in reestablishing its deterrent posture.

Madam Speaker, I thank Dr. Gingrey for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I listened to Dr. Gingrey, and I have the misfortune of reading the paper every now and again. Dr. Gingrey, you are quoted as saying yesterday in the discussion with reference to banning gay marriage, the quote says, ``This is probably the best message we can give to the Middle East in regards to the trouble we are having over there right now.''

I say to you, sir, that I find that very confusing in the sense that I don't understand how, with all of the things going on in this country and around the world, that gay marriage, yesterday, was the most important thing that we could contribute to the horror of what is going on in the Middle East.

But I don't intend to use much of my time this morning, frankly. I really am embarrassed for the House of Representatives today. Why? Let's be clear about what the priorities are for the majority and what they are for the rest of the world.

Today, the Federal minimum wage purchases less than it has at any point in the last 50 years. Let me repeat: The Federal minimum wage purchases less than it has at any point in the last 50 years. It hasn't been raised in 9 years, and today the House is going to spend its time protecting something that all of us say every morning in the House of Representatives, the Pledge of Allegiance.

In the last year, 23 percent of all Americans say they or someone in their family have had to stop medical treatment because of the cost, and today the House will spend its time attempting to turn the independent judiciary into an echo chamber of the right wing of this particular majority.

If today is anything like the typical day of the past 3 years, three American soldiers will die in Iraq or Afghanistan, the Taliban will get a little stronger in Afghanistan and the civil war will continue to be enhanced in Iraq. And the American people will watch their Congress do nothing, but listen to a bunch of demagogues who claim a crisis in the United States courts.

The Middle East is literally going up in flames, as is California, and Katrina's problems haven't been solved, and Congress' response is to criticize Federal judges.

Today in America, 110 people will be treated in an emergency room for their wounds from a handgun and there is an epidemic of violence with reference to handguns, particularly by our youth in this country. 1,500 people will die of cancer today in America, and 1,900 people will die of heart disease. And the United States House of Representatives will speechify about patriotism.

Let me tell you something, Madam Speaker: Patriots try to solve real problems and not seek out remedies to perceived problems. Yesterday in this country we had people die of hunger and malnutrition. In some parts of this country, the infant mortality rate rivals that of sub- Saharan Africa. We have a public education system that ranks below that of almost any other Western nation. We have a looming Social Security crisis, and health care costs are spiraling out of control. And what do we do? Speechify about patriotism.

These are some of the problems, just some of the problems, confronting the American people today. And what is the majority's response to this? Today we will make sure that the Pledge of Allegiance is safe from so-called activist judges.

I could go on and on, but I have already taken more time than this deserves. Court-stripping bills such as this are, according to the Chief Justice of the United States of America, John Roberts, and let me quote the Chief Justice of America, they are bad policy.

I hope the American people are paying attention to their priorities, the priorities of the Republican majority.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 6 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to the distinguished minority whip from Maryland, my very good friend, a Member of this body who works tirelessly, tirelessly to alleviate the squeeze on America's middle class.

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend from Georgia who was responding to my friend from Wisconsin Mr. Obey when he says cheese and crackers go together. And the context, as I understand it, was that you did not vote for the pay raise.

The question is, do you favor and can you push for the minimum wage? Cheese and crackers may very well go together, but they need to be washed down with milk or Coca-Cola. And the fact of the matter is people living on the minimum wage cannot buy cheese, crackers, Coca- Cola or milk, and so somewhere along the line that needs to be understood

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the day that somebody offers a bill to eliminate the Court. I mean, you talk about Jefferson and Madison. I don't know how many of you have read the Federalist Papers and clearly understand the dynamics of establishing the Federal judiciary and the importance of the separation of powers.

That is what they went to war about or with King George, it was to make sure that we had a separation of powers. I travel in countries all over this world where the leaders of the country dictate to the courts, if they have any.

I don't want to see America in that position, and I believe my good friend from California feels likewise.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Madam Speaker, a young man whose sensitivities have shown through on this subject of countless others who are less fortunate, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) to respond.

Before the gentleman from Georgia goes forward, may I say that we have but one more speaker, and then I will be prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Before yielding to the distinguished minority leader whom I believe will cause in November the priorities of this House to change substantially, and to protect not only minimum wage earners, but the middle class of this country better than we have, I would like to come to today's discussion.

I find it difficult to believe that God would want us to strip the courts of their powers to interpret the laws of this land, albeit with the divergent opinions. I shudder that my colleagues do not understand the dynamics of the Federal judiciary.

But let me do something, perhaps not dramatic, perhaps a little melodramatic. Under Madam Speaker are the words ``In God we trust.'' I have been in this body 14 years, and I have had the distinct privilege, as have many other Members of the House of Representatives, of opening these proceedings with other speakers in the chair, at least five times, from my memory.

Every time that I participated in the opening proceedings, we said the Pledge of Allegiance, and we used the term ``God.'' I don't have as many of these as I want, and minimum wage workers don't have this many, and the middle class is suffering immensely in this country. But on our money is ``In God we trust.''

Please understand this. Only once has a court ruled that you cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance in this country, and that law was stricken down. I ask you, please, to listen to the Chief Justice when he says that court-stripping would be bad policy.

You may have the right intention, but you are doing it in the wrong way.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, Ms. Pelosi.

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

It is hard to correct my friend from Missouri. I said to him last night, earlier yesterday, as it were, in the Rules Committee that he is an engineer and I am a lawyer of 44 years standing, twice a judge as it were, and I understand a little bit about how the Federal judiciary works. I said to him that I do not come into his engineering association to tell them how to construct bridges and tunnels, and not that there is any premium on lawyers or judges having clarity, but he muddies the water on this subject.

I would urge him to understand that it was under President Eisenhower that the words ``under God'' were put in the Pledge of Allegiance. Somehow or another, during World War I and World War II, without the words ``under God,'' we managed to win those wars. Somehow or another we were not a godless society any more than we are not today.

Please understand that the pendulum swings in the Federal judiciary, and there may be a day when things that you envision are important for the Court to undertake constitutionally will allow for some more liberal Congresspersons to come along than you and strip the courts of those powers.

We have a beautiful system of checks and balances in this country. Madam Speaker, I would urge that we do not impinge upon that territory.

I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule and provide this House with yet another chance to vote on legislation to increase the Federal minimum wage.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

My amendment provides that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will bring H.R. 2429, the Miller-Owens minimum wage bill, to the House floor for an up-or-down vote. This bill will gradually increase the minimum wage from the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour after about 2 years.

A footnote right there; I am so proud of my State. By petition, the State of Florida passed a minimum wage with an acceleration clause pegged to the cost of living. Hurrah for Florida.

The bill is identical to language that was included in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that was blocked by the majority leadership last month. It is also identical to the language that we on the Democratic side have tried to bring to this floor in recent weeks.

Madam Speaker, every day that we fail to bring legislation to the floor to increase the minimum wage is another day we turn our backs on America's low-income and middle-class families who desperately need our help. These workers, as many have said, struggle every day to make ends meet. Many minimum-wage earners work two and three jobs just to get by, and it is unconscionable that we have waited this long to offer even a little relief to those in this Nation who need it most.

There is a statistic that was quoted very recently, but no offense to rich people, but America's corporate executives collectively, when paired down in the first 4 hours of any given year that they worked, they earn in 4 hours more money than a minimum-wage earner makes all year long.

It has been nearly a decade since this House voted to increase the minimum wage. The minimum wage, as I said earlier, is now at its lowest level in 50 years.

A full-time minimum-wage earner makes just $10,700 a year, an amount that is $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.

I am going to cut it off right here, Madam Speaker, and go back to my original remarks. We have not done anything about genocide in Darfur; the Middle East is in flames. California is suffering forest fires. We have left the Hurricane Katrina victims by the wayside with more hurricanes looming to come during this hurricane season. The deficit is at an all-time high and accelerating. The national debt is crippling this Nation. And the middle class, we didn't fully fund education to the extent that we left no children behind. We are not putting sufficient police on the streets in order to be able to protect our Nation. Our homeland is vulnerable in more ways than one, including the containers that go on our aircraft and those that are not inspected in our ports. I could go on and on, including the potential for $4-a- gallon gas prices.

And what we are going to do? We are going to strip the courts. We ought to strip some of these people that are in the business of stripping the courts.

Madam 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 yield myself 8 minutes, and I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, before going into the substance of what we are doing today, I would like to make note that a few weeks ago in the Rules Committee when we were originally contemplating this bill, I offered an amendment to the rule that would have extended general debate to 4 hours, ensuring that all Members, Republican and Democrat, were afforded the opportunity to have their voices heard on the House's actions today. My amendment, however, was defeated along a straight party line, and I did not offer it again yesterday.

However, the majority provided 2 hours of general debate in the last rule on their other circumstances, and they also provided 2 hours of general debate on their politically driven flag-burning amendment.

If the flag is the symbol of democracy, then the Voting Rights Act is the very foundation on which that flag flies. It is both troubling and telling that the majority is unwilling to extend today's debate beyond 90 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as debate on this historic bill commences, I am reminded of President Kennedy's words delivered to Congress in 1962 with the first draft of what would later become both the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. President Kennedy wrote, and I quote, ``In this year of the emancipation centennial, justice requires us to ensure the blessing of liberty for all Americans and their posterity, not merely for reasons of economic efficiency, world diplomacy and domestic tranquility, but above all, because it is right.''

For African Americans, there exists a no more seminal piece of law, other than the Civil Rights Act, than the Voting Rights Act. Today, more than 40 years after its initial passage, Congress is again faced with an historic decision to reauthorize this mandate.

Americans have come together over the years to denounce systematic segregation and racism. Indeed, we have come a long way. But we cannot become complacent and take for granted the liberties and rights which this law provides and affords.

Today's discussion cannot only be about preserving the right to vote for those of us who already enjoy it. It has to be about ensuring that Americans from all walks of life and countries of origin are provided with these very same rights.

There are some in this body who may argue or imply that the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed. They may call for an end to the act's preclearance and bilingual ballot requirements. Others may go so far as to suggest that English proficiency be a precondition to voting.

For them, this is not a debate about fairness. It is about ideology. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, ideology has no place in today's debate.

The Voting Rights Act was enacted to break down the walls built by Jim Crow, not build them back up. There is no difference between a poll tax, a literacy test or an English proficiency requirement as a precondition to voting. All are draconian and targeted efforts to block a specific group of people from voting and, I might add, people who are registered voters and citizens of the United States.

Each attempt by a Republican Member to precondition minimum language requirements with the right to vote, in my judgment, breathes new life into a form of Jim Crow. Each attempt by a Republican Member to dilute the influence of minority voters mocks longstanding legislative and judicial precedent and mandates. When this happens, we are reminded why this law still today is so critically needed.

We will hopefully extend the Voting Rights Act by 25 years today. We should extend it beyond 100 years because some of the problems will probably continue to exist that long.

The harsh reality remains that the suppression and disenfranchisement of minority voters is still tolerated today. We saw it in Florida in 2000. We saw it in Ohio in 2004, and we will probably see it again in 2006 in November and in 2008 in some other State where people require a victory regardless of the means to their end.

We should fear those who dismiss concerns, deny such problems exist, and claim ignorance and naivete as reasons for the years of neglect. These are the answers given by those who have sat idly by throughout history when the rights and privileges of the weak and poor have been trampled on by the powerful. These were the very answers given by those who opposed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts more than 40 years ago. We will hear from their 21st century ideological soulmates later today when we debate mean-spirited and morally dubious amendments.

I stand before you as a victim of decades of injustice rooted in racial segregation. Through these eyes, I bore witness to the absolute tyranny of those who stop at nothing to stop blacks from achieving statutory equality and the right to vote. Through these eyes, I have also seen hate and racism give way to tolerance and fairness.

When history judges our actions today, it will question whether or not we met the expectations levied by those who have come before us. Did we break down barriers or did we build up walls?

Did we start a chapter in American history aimed at addressing the challenging of multiculturalism, prejudicial discrimination, and blatant xenophobia, or permit the continued manifestation of these sad realities in our country?

For years, Mr. Speaker, many of us have fought tirelessly to honor the memories of civil rights advocates who came before us. It is their shoulders on which I stand and my colleagues stand today, the shoulders of Fannie Lou Hamer and Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King and Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass and Nat Turner and so many courageous others, white and black. It is their successes which we seek to emulate; their words through which we attempt to tie the past with the present and inspire for the future.

Colleagues, do not use today as an opportunity to congratulate ourselves.

Today is not a day of jubilation. New faces have been added to the struggle, and that struggle continues. Any attack on their right to vote is an attack on ours.

I urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation and reject any attempt to amend it. We should do this not for the partisan benefit, but because, as John Kennedy said, ``It is right.'' Voting rights is right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\3/ 4\ minutes to the distinguished minority whip from Maryland, my good friend, Steny Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee and my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), who will be leaving us, but will leave us with wonderful words, my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague took cognizance of the fact that Florida still needs help; and I would remind him that it is a Republican majority there now.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains for each side?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), a former voting rights attorney.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my classmate and good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a former judge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) who has been a leader in this fight for a substantial number of years.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who is also my classmate and one of the three African Americans that was elected as a result of the Voting Rights Act, the first in 129 years in our State of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today, this is not a period for jubilation. We do not have to come here and congratulate ourselves for the reason that suggests that history is our best judge.

I also said that through these eyes I have seen the tyranny of racism. And through these eyes I have seen this great Nation change and become more tolerant. But to suggest that we have arrived at a point where we no longer would need the Voting Rights Act and measures that protect minorities would be foolhardy.

The harsh reality remains that the suppression and disenfranchisement of minority voters is still tolerated. We saw it, as Ms. Brown just said, in 2000. We saw it, as Ms. Tubbs Jones just said, in 2004 in Ohio. And the likelihood is that we will see it in 2006 and 2008 in some other State where it seems that those in the majority require a victory regardless of the means to their end.

We should fear those who dismiss concerns, deny such problems exist, and claim ignorance and naivete as to the reasons for years of neglect. These are the answers given by those who sat idly by throughout history when the rights and privileges of the weak and poor have been trampled on by the power.

When history judges our actions today, it will question whether or not we met the expectations levied by those who have come before us: Did we break down barriers or build up walls? Did we adhere to the Biblical admonition that we are our brother's keeper?

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn yesterday's brutal attack by a terrorist group on Israel, which took the lives of eight Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and captured two others, on the Israel-Lebanon border.

The actions of the terrorist organization, Hezbollah, against Israel are unconscionable. Instead of working towards peace, Hezbollah has chosen to perpetuate the violence. Terrorist attacks such as these are cowardly actions that resolve nothing. From the South, Israel has been attacked by the terrorist organization Hamas with Kassam rockets and had one of her soldiers kidnapped. Hezbollah's current terrorist assault from the North does not further any legitimate peace process. The timing of these aggressions only serves to enhance the existing tensions in the region.

Israel has complied with the U.N. charter and has completely withdrawn from Lebanon since May 2000. Now it is time for the Lebanese government to abide by the U.N.'s rules. In refusing to disarm Hezbollah as required by U.N. Resolution 1559, the Lebanese government is choosing to openly ignore the decree of the international body.

I call upon Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to accept responsibility and take immediate action against the terrorist group which Lebanon harbors.

Let us not be misled into believing these attacks arise from a single source. The terrorist organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas, are unquestionably sponsored and guided by the Iranian and Syrian governments. The United States Congress must not allow the Iranian government to use bloodshed as a deflecting tactic against U.S. attention from their unrestricted nuclear program. The Syrian and Iranian governments should be condemned along with the terrorist groups they harbor.

In response to these brutal attacks by terrorists, Israel must have the right to defend herself. Like the United States and other sovereign nations, Israel is justified in reestablishing its deterrent posture.

I express my condolences to the families of the attacked soldiers, and offer a prayer for the safe return of the two kidnapped soldiers from the Lebanon border and the soldier kidnapped in Gaza. I pray for the ultimate end of the cycle of violence in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the barbaric acts of terrorism that occurred yesterday in Mumbai, India and to introduce a resolution regarding this tragedy.

Innocent civilians were traveling on commuter trains during rush hour and seven deadly blasts took their lives. More than 200 were killed and 700 were injured. These appalling blasts created horror, chaos and mayhem in Mumbai, a city of 16 million people.

I've traveled to India four times and each time has been an awakening experience. When traveling in India, I realized the vivacity of the culture and the people.

I would like to take this time to reach out to my Indian-American constituents in the 23rd District of Florida. I am deeply concerned for your loved ones back in your native land. I am praying for you and your family and hope the recovery is quick and steady.

The country of India was founded on the principle of nonviolence and it continues in the international fight against terrorism. I believe anyone who would want to inflict pain and terror onto the people of India should be denounced and prosecuted.

Upon finding out about the blasts in Mumbai yesterday, I immediately felt sorrow. I was reminded of how our nation felt after 9/11 and how India was amongst the first nations to express its condolences to the U.S. following the attacks. On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I wish to express my condolences to the Government of India and her people. We stand with you today, we stood with you yesterday, and we will stand with you throughout the fight against terrorism.

I urge my colleagues to quickly pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have made the case for the extension of the Voting Rights Act, and I echo their sentiments. When this matter comes to the floor, if it comes, and it should today be made in order as a rule, then I will have an opportunity to speak more in that regard.

But today I rise, in addition to asking in the world's oldest democracy that we extend the Voting Rights Act, that we recognize that on yesterday the world's largest democracy was attacked in a significant and condemnatory way.

These events seem to take place on days of the 11th, and yesterday in India, despicable acts took place by those who would take the lives of innocents. In Madrid, in London, in Bali, the same thing happened.

I do acknowledge the fact that hurriedly yesterday the foreign minister of Pakistan condemned those bombings, and I commend him in that regard.

It was said earlier and reported today in one of our newspapers that in Europe it was said after September 11, ``We are all Americans now.'' Today, after yesterday in India, ``We are all Indians now.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend Mrs. Capito for the time.

I ask two questions of my colleagues here today. One, what is the emergency and can anybody that supports this measure tell me that it is going to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump? If we already own all of this, and we do, and if 80 percent of it is under lease and drilled as it is, then what is the emergency? Why can we not wait until such time as there is either a national or a military emergency?

Gas prices, you bet, but ask Jane Lunch Bucket, is this going to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump?

Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it is better for others to speak for you; and in this case I choose to let the editorial boards representing the newspapers across my great State of Florida, which have universally, universally come out against this dangerous bill. These are papers which represent views of Floridians from the Panhandle to the Keys and in all parts in between. From Orlando to Opa Loka and from Pensacola and Panama City to Pahokee to Key West and Kissimmee, Floridians agree that this would be bad for the environment, bad for tourism, bad for business and a black eye for generations to come.

The Orlando Sentinel said this week about this bill: ``House Members from Florida who support this bill are portraying it as the best deal the State can hope for, given the growing pressure to drill for oil and gas at home. Never mind the fact that the United States has only a small percentage of the world's reserves of those fuels. Congress could do more to solve the Nation's energy crunch with stronger measures to conserve energy and promote the development and use of alternative fuels. It doesn't have to imperil Florida's environment and economy. Florida's two U.S. Senators, Democrat Bill Nelson and Republican Mel Martinez, say they are reserving the right to filibuster the measure if it reaches the Senate. But it needn't come to that. Florida's House delegation and other Members in that Chamber who support an environmentally and economically sensible energy policy need to kill this bill.''

The St. Petersburg Times had this to say: ``The oil industry's,'' and I am paraphrasing, ``minions in the U.S. House are still scheming to open Florida's coast to offshore drilling. That is not surprising, considering their disdain for environmental protection. What is unforgivable,'' unforgivable, the St. Pete Times says, ``is that some Florida Representatives appear to be in league with them and are more atuned to the politics of Washington than the realities of Florida. Some other Florida Republican Members seem to think defeat is inevitable, so they might as well cut a deal that would undermine the protection of our beaches. Unfortunately, saying so could make it so. If Floridians value their beautiful beaches, clean coastal waters and tourism economy, then the time to give in to the hysteria to drill is never.''

The Palm Beach Post added this: ``Protecting Florida's coasts under the bill wouldn't be enough. Because oil spills could be carried on ocean currents, what happens in States that opt to allow drilling closer to shore could affect other States with stricter rules. A spill in the eastern gulf, for example, could travel to Panhandle beaches, to Florida's Keys, or to east coast beaches as far north as Cape Canaveral. The cover story is that disruption from Hurricane Katrina showed why the Nation needs new sources of energy. But why put new sources in the same storm path? The majority's bill, or the bill as authored, and some of them as sponsors, has one of the worst environmental records in Congress,'' according to this newspaper.

``Florida's tourism industry places the State in a unique position. Opposing this bill isn't good just for the environment. It's good for business.''

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to continue quoting from other Florida newspapers, but I think the point has been made and made and made again. While we are here now debating whether we should open up Florida and California, and maybe New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, and Maine, to oil drilling, we already have debated Alaska, and doubtless others are to come.

But it was our colleague, Mr. Boehlert, who has pointed out that through 18 months of this Congress we have brought up all sorts of ways to drill in this country but not one, not one bill that would look at alternatives

or do anything about conservation. Pretty telling, don't you think?

I asked one of my Republican colleagues last night what his opinion on this bill would be if it meant drilling in the heart of his district, one of the most environmentally unique ecosystems that we have in this country. I give him credit for consistency. We were on the elevator leaving the Rules Committee at midnight, and he flat-out told me if there was some oil or gas to get there, so be it.

Wow. This is truly frightening. I hope the American people are listening. A Member of Congress, and there are others like him, potentially thinks that we should put oil derricks on every street corner, I gather, in the country if there is even a chance we might get a teaspoon of oil out of it.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are others who want to speak on this irresponsible bill, so I am not going to use more of my time. But trust me, as a fifth-generation Floridian, as a person deeply concerned about our environment in this world as well as in Florida, and a Member of Congress that represents more small businesses than all but two other Congresspersons in this body, according to the Small Business Administration, I oppose this rule for the bill we will soon consider, which I consider to be reckless.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Rules Committee with the distinguished gentlewoman, my good friend, Ms. Matsui from California, Sacramento and that area, who understands environmental consequences. I am pleased and privileged to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to my good friend from Maine, a gentleman who has some understanding of fisheries and coastlines, 2 minutes to Representative Allen.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from California (Mrs. Capps) who knows a little bit about the coastline, being from Santa Barbara.

As I recall, my friend from Pleasantville and Happy Valley wanted drilling 3 miles out, he perceives it as such an emergency.

I find it strange that people that live so far away from the potential problem have all of the correct answers. If we were drilling in Happy Valley outside of Penn State, you would be down here concerned, as I am, and Ms. Lee, who comes from San Francisco Bay in Oakland, California, who understands something about drilling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). He is a former ranking member of the Resources Committee, and has, in my judgment, extraordinary clarity regarding the issue of the day here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman, my classmate, Ms. Woolsey.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Hawaii, and he is my good friend, knows that I love his volcanic State that has no Outer Continental Shelf. If we were drilling in Oahu or on the road to Hana, I would hear a different perspective. But I understand that dynamic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield at this time 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) who also has a district that has environmentally sensitive areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will take up legislation to do as Mr. Stupak just rightly said, stop price gouging at the gas pump and provide some immediate relief for the American consumer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider this bill today that further opens up our precious coastal resources to the oil industry, should we not also be talking about how those oil companies treat Americans at the gas pump? Should they be allowed to drill the oil that belongs to the American people and then turn around and sell it to us at unconscionable prices?

They did not drill 3 years ago because the price of a barrel of oil was $30. Now it is $70, and they are ready to go drill. By that time, it will be $80, and then turn around and sell it to us at prices that are unconscionable.

If the previous question is defeated, I will ask the House to take up H.R. 3936, Representative Stupak's bill.

Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of H.R. 4761 and it will not affect any of the amendments that are in order under this rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to vote on something to bring real relief to the American people and not degrade the environment in our Outer Continental Shelf.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Slaughter for your extraordinary leadership on not just this subject but countless subjects dealing with the liberties of American citizens.

Last night in the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter said that this was an historic moment. I could not agree more with that fact.

This does not call for hyperbole or hyperventilation or fancy rhetorical flourishes. This particular measure has the weight that must have existed at the time that the Founding Fathers and Mothers of this country gave birth to the first amendment of the United States Constitution.

If there had been no reporting in the free press during the period of the colonies as to what King George and those persons were doing, there may never have been an American Revolution.

Almost exactly 35 years ago, the eminent Mr. Justice Potter Stewart in the Pentagon Papers said this: ``In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry, in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government,'' he wrote.

He continued, ``For this reason, it is perhaps here that a press that is alert, aware, and free most vitally serves the basic purpose of the first amendment. For without an informed and free press, there cannot be an enlightened people.''

I have had the distinct privilege of being the president of an international organization, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, its parliamentary assembly that Ms. Slaughter and others are members of as well; and during that period I was the lead election monitor in places where democracy is trying to find root but in places where journalists courageously went forward to offer information that should be offered against those administrations, Belarus being an example of that, where there is no free press and where the people cannot rise up, as they did in Ukraine where the press played a major role.

I believe this administration operates on the premise the best defense is a good offense. It is never any accountability with them. It is always somebody else did something. A guy lost his election to one of our distinguished colleagues from Utah last week. He said the devil was the reason that he did not have his campaign money. Maybe it is the devil that makes them do this.

We have flag burning proposals for constitutional amendment. We have gay marriage proposals for constitutional amendment. Yet when it comes to the basic freedom and liberty of this country, the press, we are presented with a resolution that condemns them. That is all it does. It does not sanction. It condemns them.

It is our opportunity to vent and say little things about The New York Times. Please add The Washington Times. Please add The Wall Street Journal. Please add other media entities that have reported along these lines.

I do not believe in what Fox News says, but I believe, and I do, for their right to say it.

You know better than to seek to amend the first amendment, and let us look at this resolution.

It is factually inaccurate when you say, ``Whereas appropriate Members of Congress, including the members of the Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and House of Representatives.'' I am a member of that committee. You say that they were briefed, and I am here to tell you that every member of that committee was not briefed on this particular program.

But I want you to listen to Ben Franklin. I want all of you to listen to Ben Franklin. He said, ``Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

Find all of the leakers, prosecute them, put them in jail, but let a free press stand in this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Is the gentleman referring to the financial services program, as offered?

I would like to see that exact date, and I am here to tell you that we didn't receive such a briefing. And if you can tell me that this resolution holds that every member was briefed, I am here to tell you that that is not true.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and good friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. It is the misguided belief of some that the line item veto will serve as an effective tool to overcome the profligate spending by Congress. The irony, of course, is that if Congress had any kind of backbone, we would do it ourselves. For instance, if these same Members, who in my opinion feign seriousness about reining in spending, were actually serious, they would support our colleague, Mr. Flake, more often in his admirable yet heretofore unsuccessful attempts in cutting spending using the constitutionally mandated method, writing them into or removing them from bills before being sent to the President.

Proponents argue that giving the President enhanced authority and power would check Congress' mismicromanagement of Federal spending. Frankly, I think this reasoning is preposterous. I highly doubt that increased rescission authority would be used to decrease our Nation's deficit. To the contrary, I believe such authority would only further the aims of the partisan politics we have seen through this Congress and this administration. And let me be fair. If there is

ever a Democratic President, I think he or she would likely use this particular legislation in a partisan fashion.

For more than 5 years, the President has continually signed off on budgets that have only deepened our Nation's deficit. If the President seeks to cut excessive spending and lower the deficit, he, meaning this President, should adopt the traditional means he already possesses before seeking expanded authority.

Americans might have less trouble keeping their heads above water if they were not being overwhelmed with the red ink flowing in Washington, D.C. The truth of the matter is that this President has no need to use his power to veto when he can convince the majority in Congress to strike sections of legislation that go against the President's political agenda. In fact, in the more than 5 years that President Bush has been in office, he has not used the veto authority he currently possesses to veto a single piece of legislation that would lower our deficit or reduce the debt.

Who knew that in the year 2000 the Supreme Court would choose America's first prime minister and relegate Congress' role to that of an advisory committee.

Someone said recently that this Republican Congress has been simply a rubber stamp for the President. I politely disagree. My view is that at least a rubber stamp leaves an impression.

We have heard, and we will continue to hear, that almost all our Governors have something akin to line item veto authority. This, however, should not be used as a reason why we ought to do the same at the Federal level. In Florida, for example, the Governor's expanded veto authority has clearly shifted powers long held by the State legislators to the executive branch. We cannot let this happen here. We, the legislators, not the executive branch, should determine the legislative agenda.

Ms. Slaughter, in our meeting the other day, said where is it that this divine notion of what ought to be in the power of the purse is over there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, no matter who occupies that office?

Now, once you take an even closer look at this bill, it gets even worse. The bill's provisions mandate that no amendment can be made to any rescission bills while in committee. This heavily restrictive ``all-or-nothing'' approach to the legislative process is quite damaging. Moreover, it totally undermines proponents' arguments that the President's ``all-or-nothing'' power to veto is what must be curbed.

The bill also stipulates limited debate in both the House and the Senate. It certainly does not answer the question of what happens if the Senate votes one way and the House votes another on one of the measures that the President has determined should be rescinded. These requirements do nothing but upset the delicate balance of power that our Founding Fathers crafted.

A footnote right there: Didn't the Supreme Court already tell us once before that veto in this particular fashion was unconstitutional, the line item veto?

If this bill passes, consensus, the ultimate cornerstone of the legislative process, as well as the principles of democracy itself, will most definitely be lost. Furthermore and most importantly, I do not think it wise or in the best interest of the American people for the legislative branch, this House that the Founding Fathers gave the power of the purse, to delegate more of its powers to any administration. Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, wherever the President comes from, they should not have the power constitutionally mandated for the legislative branch to have. Administrations have continually abused our trust and usurped our constitutional authority.

For more than 5 years, the delicate system of checks and balances that our country depends on has been compromised all too often. Whether using so-called signing statements, and I wish I had to time to explain to the American public that dynamic, and I might add used by President Clinton as well, but not as much as by President Bush, which include caveats to bills, or tapping our phones, or wildly interpreting authority given by the PATRIOT Act, this President has shown little to no regard for Congress' coequal authority for control over the management of the country.

We cannot let this President, or any President for that matter, upset the balance needed to run this country. Granting line item veto authority to the executive branch would not only be offensive to democracy, it would be a serious mistake. It would undermine the United States Constitution, and it would be the kind of mistake we cannot afford to pay.

We are not children in this body, Mr. Speaker. We do not need to enshrine in law a paternalistic relationship between Congress and the President.

I urge rejection of this rule, and I urge rejection and entreat my colleagues to defeat the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, excuse me. Will my colleague remain for me to use some of my time to ask him a question before I yield to my good friend Mr. Miller?

And I might add my good friend and fellow Floridian, and he is my good friend.

Let me ask you, Mr. Crenshaw, do you feel that this House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, or the Congress, is in a deficit spending environment at this time? Can you answer ``yes'' or ``no''?

Right. And every year since the President has been in office, we have been in this deficit spending environment; would you agree?

Then tell me what is down and what is up? Did we not raise the debt ceiling twice?

Reclaiming my time, you say that this will be a little bit more. Our good friend Paul Ryan, who is an author of this legislation, yesterday in my dialogue with him, he agreed that this legislation gives the President the power to do five messages in regular legislation and 10 in an omnibus. Do you think by any stretch of the imagination that the American public believes that this is going to reduce the national debt?

Can you answer ``yes'' or ``no''?

Reclaiming my time, we do not live in Alaska, and no affront to you. I am delighted that we have $1.8 billion coming to Florida for coastal protection, but the President could have line itemed that, too.

Mr. Crenshaw, you served in the State legislature. And under Democrats and Republicans that had the line item veto, the simple fact of the matter is they have used it in a partisan fashion more often than not. That is among the fears.

Thank you for the dialogue.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend from Wisconsin, perhaps it would be helpful if we have a little bit of historical foundation. Sometimes we forget these great people that met and debated for a long time before they determined the form of government that we should have.

But one of the things that they established most immediately in Article I, after the Preamble, ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,'' Article I, Section 1, colleagues: ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.'' Not a President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

I don't believe he said that. I want to continue along those lines. Evidently the previous speaker doesn't know what Governor Jeb Bush just did, but that is another story.

I want to keep the Constitution before us. What it says in that same article, which, incidentally, was the first article, the article creating the President was the second article, in the first article, ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time,'' by the Congress.

I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a distinguished member of long standing on the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, because of the limited number of speakers that I have left, I will reserve my time and allow my colleague from Florida who has more time and maybe more speakers to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), for 1\1/ 2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Pennsylvania began his remarks by quoting Ben Franklin who also was from Pennsylvania. Let me also say to you what Mr. Franklin said. At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in your home State and his, Benjamin Franklin was asked, What have you wrought? He answered, A Republic, if you can keep it. He did not say a monarchy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman my good friend Dr. Gingrey from Georgia said we are over here railing while they are getting ready to pass later today the line item veto and repeal the ``death tax.''

Let me tell you what we ought to be railing about. Yesterday, we pulled the Voting Rights Act, an opportunity for its reauthorization. This Nation has an immigration crisis, and you are getting ready to take a dog-and-pony show on the road.

Fifty-five million Americans do not have health insurance, veterans' identities have been stolen because of incompetence, and gas prices are at an outrageous high, and here we are discussing something that ain't going to balance the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time. I have no further speakers other than myself, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining amount of our time.

During the course of this debate and discussion, I have cited to the United States Constitution frequently. I remind my colleagues that article I of the United States Constitution created the Congress. Article II created the President of the United States. Article III created the courts. The Founders must have had something in their mind as to what was first, and as it pertains to the power of the purse, they made it exactingly clear.

In this same Constitution, there are four sections dealing with powers of the President, 10 sections dealing with the powers of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will provide for separate consideration of legislation introduced by Representative Spratt that provides a comprehensive approach to controlling our spiraling deficits without stripping the House of Representatives of its power of the purse.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, before we turn over our constitutionally granted power to the executive branch, let us vote on a measure that will actually reduce the deficit, rein in irresponsible spending and help to bring accountability back to the House's legislative process.

Mr. Spratt's bill does many things to encourage deficit reduction. It reinstates pay-as-you-go rules for both mandatory spending and revenues. It amends the Congressional Budget Act to stop the reconciliation process from being used to make the deficit worse or the surplus smaller. It enforces the 3-day layover requirement in the House rules to give Members adequate time to review legislation. It adds earmark provisions. The bill protects important mandatory spending like Social Security, Medicare and veterans benefits from any expedited rescission process. It prohibits the President or executive branch officials from using the rescission authority as a bargaining tool or even a source of blackmail just to secure votes.

In all fairness, when Mr. Clinton was the President of the United States, the first thing that he did with the veto power he had was veto something in toto.

It will be used in a partisan manner.

It is important for Members to know that defeating the previous question will not block the underlying bill, but by voting ``no'' on the previous question, we will be able to consider the Spratt alternative bill.

I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today with other colleagues to offer an amendment prohibiting the FAA from eliminating, consolidating, colocating or planning to consolidate or colocate any terminal radar control centers which are referred to as TRACONs.

The TRACON system guides planes within a 40-mile radius of the airport on their takeoffs and final approaches.

In an effort to save money, the FAA has embarked on an ambitious consolidation and collocation plan which will significantly limit our air traffic capacities in the future.

The FAA's current consolidation proposal seeks to eliminate 14 of 24 TRACONs in 9 States across the United States. In some instances, entire States will be left without any approach radar system within their borders. In other instances, consolidation runs the risk of placing undue stress on nearby TRACONs already having to deal with larger airspaces and staffing shortfalls.

For example, under the FAA's plan, the TRACON in Boise, Idaho, will be consolidated into a TRACON in Salt Lake City, Utah. This will leave the entire State of Idaho with no TRACON at all, and controllers in Utah will be directing approaching aircraft into Idaho airports, well over 300 miles away.

In Florida, the FAA is planning to consolidate the TRACONs of Miami International, Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International, and Palm Beach International airports, all within a Federal high risk urban area, into one TRACON.

Once this plan is implemented, if a terrorist attack or a natural disaster were to strike the Miami TRACON, then all three major international airports would lose their approach radar system. Controllers in Jacksonville, which is more than 350 miles away, would be where they would be controlled.

Finally, the southern California TRACON, the busiest in the country, reported 12 close calls between January and May 31 of this year. This total is up from only seven close calls during the same period last year.

Just imagine if southern California controllers already operating in a high risk urban area and facing staffing shortfalls have to direct their daily workload of more than 6,000 flights and those flights in a nearby region.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a question of whether or not consolidation can logistically be done. It can be done and it is being done. On the contrary, this is a question of what should Congress be willing to risk for consolidation to occur?

The FAA's consolidation of TRACONs runs the grave risk of leaving our air traffic system vulnerable during critical times.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Idaho, Representative Otter.

I thank the ranking member for yielding to me. And let me answer quickly what the FAA is weighing in closing some of air traffic control facilities. Reno would go to northern California. Fresno and Bakersfield would go to Las Vegas. Pensacola would go to Meridian, Mississippi--excuse me, Gulfport would go to Meridian and Tallahassee would go to Pensacola. Lincoln would go to Omaha, and Dayton and Columbus would go to Cleveland. Those are just some of the suggestions.

Why I asked for time, Mr. Olver, is to respond to my good friend from Orlando and central Florida to tell him that I don't think this proposal is bogus at all. I don't think that he can demonstrate to me that Orlando and Jacksonville are ready to handle, either in the event of a natural disaster or a destruction in the nature of the kind of disasters that we prepare for in our homeland, that it would allow, among other things, that it would be a smooth transition. I don't believe that to be the case. Workload is simply added to those facilities where they don't exist today because those centers will be completely gone if the FAA gets its way.

Simply put, during these critical times we should not be limiting our air traffic capacity, and I believe that that is what my amendment remedies. And I certainly didn't bring it here with any thought in mind of it being bogus. All the air traffic controllers that have contacted my office and expressed their concerns, I don't consider them bogus.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for yielding me the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a bit of trepidation about this rule and this process, which clearly circumvents the regular order of business of the House. I can find no reasonable explanation or sensible justification for going around the well-established rules of this body to bring the transportation appropriations bill to the floor today in this manner.

The majority has been so kind in explaining why it believes that this martial law is needed. Unfortunately, the majority's explanation has fallen a bit short on convincing this side of the aisle that we need to do this today and not tomorrow.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why this bill must come to the floor in this manner. It is, after all, only Tuesday. You would think that after controlling the House for 11 years that my friends in the majority would have figured out how to bring a nonemergency appropriations bill to the floor under regular order. Indeed, there is simply no good reason to handle these bills outside the normal parameters of the way the House should conduct its business.

Moreover, when the House does operate this way, it effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators. When the leadership of this body bypasses the rules of regular order, as it is attempting to again do today, it really does discredit this great institution in which all of us are privileged to serve.

Realize, Mr. Speaker, my concerns are not content but rather process. This martial law rule sends a false message to the American people that this is what the Framers intended when they envisioned the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives ought to be a body of thought and deliberation, where America's greatest needs are given proper consideration. Under the majority, however, thought and deliberation have been replaced by rubber stamps and obvious disorganization. This is not a good thing, and it is a disservice to the American people.

I really do urge my colleagues to reject continued attempts to circumvent regular order in the House of Representatives.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I was trying to allow that we go a bit longer only for the reason that the next agenda matter is not present for us. I won't make an accusation that that allows that my friends in the majority are having difficulty in organizing their efforts.

My good friend from Florida, for example, just commented that this has been a measure, or this is a measure, that was passed and that it has been known since June 9; and at the very same time, at the outset, you began by saying that we are in the process of determining what we are going to do before we report out the rule.

You know, we use a lot of beltway language here, and for a long time I didn't believe that there was a beltway mentality. The tragedy is now I, as well as others that I know, have become a part of it. Let me say what I am talking about.

When I say I am not talking about content, I am not talking about the substance of the transportation measure that is so critical to this Nation. What I really am talking about is the process where the Nation's representatives get an opportunity to speak on issues of vital concern. So, then, when we say that this rule circumvents regular order, as a general rule Jane and Joe Lunchbucket don't have a clue what we are talking about. So perhaps it would be helpful, since we have a little time, to explain to them what regular order would normally require for a nonemergency appropriations measure.

The rule that we are getting ready to present this transportation measure under also called for same-day consideration of legislation providing for the Department of Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. What it does is it circumvents one of the rules, which is 6(a) of rule XIII. That generally doesn't mean a thing to the American public, but let me tell them what it means.

That rule requires a two-thirds vote in order to consider a rule on the same day reported from the Rules Committee. Two-thirds of the Members of this House would have to do that. What we are doing with this rule is we are waiving that two-thirds requirement and we are saying it is all right, you can bring up any of these things under the same-day rule because it doesn't require two-thirds of the Members.

I can assure you if two-thirds of the membership were required in order for us to be able to proceed along regular order, it might not be difficult to achieve; but it would be fair for us to function that way. So we have ignored the process repeatedly here in the House of Representatives. And what that does is it creates a situation where Members in the House of Representatives who represent constituents don't get an opportunity to have their measures considered by the Rules Committee or by the House under regular order, thereby precluding them from having an opportunity to actually receive the best interests of their representative as it pertains to issues that are germane to their interests in their locales.

That is a long way to describe that when you waive the process, you waive the rights of the people that we represent to have their representatives present their views here on the floor of the House of Representatives and to have this great deliberative body work its will. Therein lies the rub with this particular kind of process.

It even has a distinct name: martial law. That sounds like something that is forcing something or requiring something to be done under the aegis of authoritarian rule. That is not right, and that is what we complain of, those of us that have the opportunity and privilege to do so in the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, Representative Diaz-Balart, for yielding me time. And I rise today in opposition to this rule and with great concern and reservation about the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007.

While the underlying legislation is a significant improvement over President Bush's proposed budget, I am deeply troubled that Republicans continue to use their inability to manage the fiscal needs of our country as a convenient scapegoat for underfunding or completely eliminating programs of

critical importance to the neediest of Americans.

Let me say from the outset I do believe that the subcommittee, led by Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver, did all that it could do with the unreasonable fiscal constraints that the majority of this body gave them to work with. At the same time, this is the eighth appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 that the House has considered; and in almost every single bill, the wants of the well-to-do are trumping the needs of the less fortunate. The underlying legislation is following this very unfortunate trend, and its priorities are short- sighted.

While no one single area was completely spared from funding cuts, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the critical public housing assistance programs funded in this important Department are, without doubt, the worst off in this bill.

Fair housing activities, the Community Development Financial Institutions fund, rental assistance, the Public Housing Capital fund, Community Development Block Grants, and elderly housing, let me go back to that, elderly housing programs, all that I just identified are just some of the many programs whose budgets have been placed on the chopping block in this bill.

I find it incomprehensible as to why the majority in this body continues to cut funding for public housing assistance at a time when people need it most. Do my colleagues realize that it costs much less to keep someone in a home or apartment than it does to put a roof over their head once they have become homeless?

I ask: Where is Congress's commitment to keeping people in their homes? Where is our commitment to helping those most in need? If we are committed to them, then we certainly have a weird way of showing it around here.

Later today, Representative Al Green and I are going to offer an amendment to restore funding for fair housing activities at HUD. I am hopeful that the House will approve our amendment along with others who would seek to restore funding for section 8 vouchers, rural housing programs, and the HOPE VI program, which is completely eliminated in this bill.

Additionally, the underlying legislation cuts Amtrak's funding next year by more than one-third to a level that is barely half of what Amtrak has identified to continue operating at its current level.

Yesterday in the Rules Committee, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, my good friend, Representative Olver, asked that his amendment restoring $400 million in Amtrak funding cuts be made in order under the rule.

Why did he need a waiver? Because unlike other amendments that will be offered today, Mr. Olver's amendment would have paid for itself by rolling back a small portion of the tax cuts to those making $1 million or more. The rule, however, blocks Mr. Olver from offering his amendment. As a result, the House will never have the opportunity to vote on restoring funding cuts to Amtrak.

I find it so difficult to believe that we think that it is okay to have a secondhand rail system in this country. That is foolish. And somehow or another we must preserve the integrity of the last remaining rail system of consequence for people in a corridor to be transported.

Finally, I intend to offer an amendment which prohibits the Federal Aviation Administration from consolidating or eliminating Terminal Radar Control Centers, or TRACONs, at airports in federally designated high threat urban areas.

In some places, FAA's TRACON consolidation program is leaving entire States without an approach radar system to coordinate and oversee approaching air traffic in that State. In other instances, consolidation runs the risk of placing undue stress on nearby TRACONs already having to deal with larger air spaces and staffing shortfalls.

The consolidation of these centers in high risk urban areas which are already considered to be at greater risk for terrorist attack or for natural disasters is not good policy. Do we really want to limit the capacity of our air traffic radar systems during national emergencies, especially if Congress can do something about it?

I hope that my colleagues will support my amendment later today. Case in point. In West Palm Beach, Florida, what we find is that one is being consolidated into Miami. And if that whole radar system goes down, when we have a natural hurricane disaster, as is always the potential, then we do not have, if the Miami system goes down, the backup of the West Palm Beach radar system. Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to believe that FAA does not understand that.

Mr. Speaker, in my 14 years in the House, I have been fond of saying that the budget and appropriations bills present Congress with the opportunity to outline its priorities. The underlying transportation appropriations bill provides the American people with the grim reality that the majority in this body would rather cut the taxes of those of us in our society who are better off financially, they would rather cut our taxes than pay for housing assistance programs which benefit the less fortunate in our country.

This is not political rhetoric, as some on the other side of the aisle may suggest today. On the contrary, it is the obvious and very real fiscal mess which we have all brought upon ourselves. How we get out of this mess will be up to the American people in just a few short months. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to Mr. Olver, I would just respond to my friend who brags about a 6 percent increase. He and I have districts that are very close to each other, we adjoin each other, but we evidently live in different sections of south Florida where fair housing programs are being cut in this program, with a 2.2 percent reduction.

Community development financial assistance, a cut of $15\1/2\ million; tenant-based rental assistance program that you just talked about, my good friend from Florida, is funded at $14.3 billion. You say that is a great increase. Guess what the administration requested? $100 million more that they did not get.

Project-based rental assistance is cut $200 million. Cost-share requirement for HUD earmark, the bill requires that HUD earmarks in the bill is subject to a 40 percent cost sharing. Rural housing received a cut. Public housing capital fund, $261 million, 10 percent below for fiscal year 2006.

How in the world can you all make increases out of cuts, when in fact people are hurting and need adequate housing?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my good friend and classmate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for yielding me the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as many in this body know, Representative Diaz-Balart and I are privileged to represent perhaps the most international region of our country in South Florida. It is therefore only fitting that the two of us be here today to manage this rule on the foreign operations appropriations bill. I look forward to a fruitful discussion with the gentleman on many important issues facing our Nation abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great concern about the foreign operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. While the other 10 appropriations bills fund our domestic priorities, the foreign operations bill outlines and fulfills our commitments abroad. It serves as Congress's most significant diplomatic statement each year. I just hope that the international community isn't listening this time around.

The underlying legislation not only shortchanges funding for some of our country's most critical foreign programs by almost $2.4 billion, but it sends a clear message to our allies and enemies alike that the United States Congress is not seriously fulfilling America's commitment to the global community. I am certainly pleased that the bill has increased funding for development assistance, critically important child survival nonHIV/AIDS programs. It has increased funding for basic education programs and HIV/AIDS funding.

Nevertheless, I remain concerned that we are not doing enough in other areas. The dramatic underfunding of critical programs throughout the underlying bill calls into question the House's commitment to refugee assistance, debt relief, democracy in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the global environmental facility, and foreign aid in general.

Let me drop a footnote there. The chair and the ranking member have done the best that they could with what they have, but it is the overall parameters and all of our responsibility here in the House that fails. Perhaps most troubling, these cuts dramatically hinder the President's ability to conduct the business of this country abroad. As our colleagues come to the floor today to discuss, debate, and consider the underlying legislation, I sincerely hope that they will look at the statement this bill is sending to the international community and reconsider some of these dramatic cuts.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 years, I have had the great honor and privilege to serve as the president of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's parliamentary assembly. In this capacity I have traveled to 29 countries in Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Central Asia; I have met with heads of state, foreign ministers, ambassadors, colleagues of foreign parliaments, our ambassadors, and interest groups throughout the OSCE region.

If I have learned anything during this time, it is that the principles of freedom and democracy in many places in this world are still struggling to break free from the bondages of oppression and tyranny. Today is a day when American leadership in the world is desperately needed.

In the former Soviet Union, many states are struggling desperately to establish solid democratic foundations. How is Congress helping them? By cutting economic aid to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union countries by a total of $202 million from last year's level. At a time when African nations are being forced to allocate well over 50 percent of their annual budgets to repay debt to western countries, how is Congress helping? By cutting debt relief funding by more than $44 million to a level that is more than $160 million less than President Bush's request.

Throughout the world, the number of refugees fleeing across borders to escape persecution and poverty is increasing, yet the House is now poised to reduce the United States' commitment to international refugee assistance by almost $33 million, $82 million less than President Bush's request. In Sudan and Congo, innocent people are dying for no reason other than the color of their skin or the religion that they practice, but our financial commitment to them continues to fall short.

How about the Millennium Challenge Account? As my colleagues will recall, Congress established the account in

January 2004, and through fiscal year 2006 has underfunded the account by $2.6 billion. The underlying legislation, as has been the case in the past, again shortchanges the Millennium Challenge Account by $1 billion. And don't even get me started on the bill's rescinding of $188 million in already appropriated dollars to the World Bank. No wonder so many in the world have really stopped looking at us as a place of hope and compassion and reliability.

As the lone superpower in the world, Mr. Speaker, we must not allow ourselves to become encapsulated in the philosophy of leadership by force. Our military must not only be the strongest in the world, and they are, and today I compliment the special forces for their extraordinary efforts in bringing to ultimate justice a person that was an ultimate terrorist, but so must our diplomacy be strong and the best in the world. America's willingness and sincere interest to utilize the voices of reason and persuasion over the barrel of a gun must be guided by sound principle in its foreign policy.

The underlying legislation, not the defense appropriations bill as some in this body may want you to believe, in my judgment, is the greatest tool that Congress has in its box to show the world true American strength. Whether or not we choose to maximize this tool is, frankly, up to us. I fear, however, that the underlying legislation comes up dramatically short of what needs to be done.

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

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

Before I yield to my very good friend from New York, I would like to compliment my very good friend who just spoke, Mr. Kolbe, the chairperson of this particular committee, and compliment him for the 6 years of very active work on behalf of this country. I know for a fact that he did all that he could with what he had; and you are to be thanked, Jim, for your great service, and you will be missed sorely by all of us.

However, I can honestly say I will not miss going on CODELs with you because of your indefatigable energy when we are on CODEL; and if we had the time, we could share some stories in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the foreign operations subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask a question. It is my belief that compared to gross domestic product that America spends less than 1 percent on the foreign relations and this particular matter. Do you feel, as I do, that we are pretty stingy compared to other countries when it comes to that measure? Everything you said is true, and all of those things are wonderful; but I still think that we are pretty stingy in this arena.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his response. Bill Gates and others in their eleemosynary undertakings do not have the responsibility that we do here in this body to undertake appropriate foreign undertakings.

That said, I would at this time yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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