Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my good friend, for yielding me the time.

You know, it is not often that I find myself quoting the distinguished President Ronald Reagan, but this morning, I just cannot help myself. I feel like I must say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ``well, there you go again.''

It was just 1 week ago today that Mr. Bishop and I were discussing the merits of drilling for oil and natural gas on the beaches of Florida or California and elsewhere. Thoughtfully, the House rejected that shortsighted and ill-conceived plan and left my Republican colleagues looking elsewhere on the map to score political points while doing absolutely nothing to help consumers or develop sound energy policy.

Of course, should ill-conceived ideas and shortsighted plans ever start selling for $75 a barrel, I would like the drilling rights to the Republican party platform.

Madam Speaker, there are so many things wrong with this bill, it is almost like I do not know where to start. So much to criticize, so little time. For starters, let us take a look at how this bill might benefit our country, using the most wildly optimistic predictions of how much extractable oil there is in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Using the Bush administration's own estimates, which are probably inflated like some of the other Bush predictions we have heard over the past 5 years, there are 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR. If this is accurate, then in 20 years, our reliance on foreign oil would be reduced from, get this, Madam Speaker, reduced from 60 percent to 57 percent and would likely result in gas prices being reduced by, again, using administration estimates, one penny per gallon. Well, on behalf of the American people, let me just say thank you for the relief at the pump in the year 2025.

Using less optimistic predictions, being more conservative if you will, there may be only 3.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR or roughly 6 months of oil based on our current consumption. This is the silver bullet to our Nation's energy concerns?

Once again, like with the immigration issue, this administration and this Congress seem to only be moved to action when an issue becomes a political crisis. Both of these issues obviously have been a public policy crisis for years, but it is election year, isn't it? Some pay more attention to the needs of the American people when their jobs are on the line in 5 months from now.

You know what I find most interesting, Madam Speaker? It is the tepid support by energy companies for this proposal. Most of the major oil companies have recently pulled up stakes in Alaska. They have already come to the conclusion that this Congress will probably come to, I would think, in maybe 5 years and another 24 votes. It just does not make economic sense to drill in Alaska. BP, Amoco, Texaco and Chevron, among others, are examples of companies that are questioning their former commitment to drilling in the ANWR.

Here is one of my favorites, Madam Speaker, and I would advise my colleagues on the other side to pay attention because I am about to mention one of the most hallowed names from your point of view.

A former petroleum engineer from Halliburton, a company that heretofore has not seen a patch of land they did not want to exploit, said recently, ``The enthusiasm of government officials about ANWR exceeds that of industry because oil companies are driven by market forces, investing resources in direct proportion to the economic potential, and the evidence so far about ANWR is not promising.''

But you know, Madam Speaker, I am not as naive as some of my colleagues may think. I know this bill is not as much about Alaska as it is about Florida and California's outer continental shelf. I said it last week, and I will repeat it again today, this bill is simply trying to get the nose under the tent and using that approach.

It has been widely reported, without much argument, that opening up ANWR to oil drilling is simply a political ploy to opening the door to areas that allegedly have more promise, which brings us right back to where we were last week until our colleagues Adam Putnam, Lois Capps and Jim Davis helped to straighten things out.

Finally, Madam Speaker, to add insult to injury, the Rules Committee Republicans have shut out the American people from offering thoughtful alternatives to their risky scheme in the ANWR. Despite having no legislative business on the House floor tomorrow, none, no legislative business tomorrow, yes, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, Congress is taking another Friday off. Despite this fact, the leadership brings this bill to the floor under a closed rule. That means no duly elected Member of this body, Republican, Democrat or Independent, will have the opportunity to amend this bill. You heard me right. If any of 300 million Americans had a different idea about what to do about this bill, their elected representative in this House of Representatives is prohibited from offering an alternative, a change, a better plan. And we call this democracy?

Madam Speaker, for the reasons I have already articulated and for so many others that I am sure many of my colleagues will point out, we are prescribed by time constraints and, therefore, cannot discuss them all, but I urge any Member of this House who has any other idea about sound energy policy to oppose this closed rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Madam Speaker, how much time remains?

Before yielding to my distinguished friend, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a March 20th report in The New York Times, byline reading ``North Slope Oil Spill Raises New Concerns Over Pipeline Maintenance;'' and equally from yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the ``EPA and the FBI Check Allegations of Improper Repair Work on Two Big Storage Tanks.''

For all my colleagues that talk about all this environmental protection, I would like for them to read these two articles.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have listened to this debate rather repeatedly over the years, and I still am trying to determine how it is that my colleagues on the other side persist in having politics triumph over geology.

I know of no substantial study that demonstrates that there would be a sufficient amount of oil that would cause substantial price decreases in gas at the pump. Given its wildest potential, even the most optimistic, it would be well into the future, probably as late as 2012 before a single drop of oil would go into a refinery and then a gas tank.

There is so much to be said for the fact that this Arctic reserve, in its pristine form, is among the last natural habitats that the United States has preserved. Unfortunately, in my State, every day that I pass on a road, I see more and more ecosystem destroyed so that we can build more and cause substantial damage to the environment.

Those of us who speak of environmental degradation do so with great passion, recognizing the significant need that we have as a country to produce alternative energy sources and to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. That is a real concern that I believe my colleagues and the majority and those of us in the minority share.

How you get there is not through a ruse, in the final analysis, and that is what ANWR is, because no one has been able, with the exception of one drilling action that took place in 1998 that has been a closely held secret, no one has been able to really tell any of us how much oil is there.

Given the best amount, it would be 10 billion barrels, which doesn't come close to what the problem is, and that is of the significant amount of coastal oil that exists off the shore of California and Florida in the gulf, and that is over 70 billion barrels by scientific estimate.

So, basically, what my colleagues want to do and what the administration wants to do is stick its nose under the tent and drill in a pristine area and then lift the moratoria that exists in California and Florida for offshore drilling.

I don't know how long many of us have been in Congress or will be here, but I don't believe that it is wise policy for us to damage our environment for political gain and to do so in a political season, when, in fact, we know that what we do, even if this were to pass, and I call on my colleagues to defeat this rule, even if it were to pass, we know full well that it will not provide what is needed for us all.

I might add that the administration seems to be going in a different direction than many of the oil companies. Significant numbers of them, ConocoPhillips, for example, has stopped its financial support of Arctic power; Chevron, Texaco, BP, long active in Alaska, moved their executives to Houston from Alaska for the reason that they no longer feel that they are going to be able to produce the kinds of results that had been predicted. ExxonMobil has shown little public enthusiasm for the refuge.

I don't know if this enthusiasm that is coming from the other side is motivated by reality, but I do know this: It has a lot to do with politics and very little to do with geological realities. Let us defeat this rule and defeat this substantive measure for the 12th time and be prepared to do so the 13th, because I am sure my colleagues will bring it back.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, Madam Speaker, but I do want to point out to my colleague, in light of the fact that he did not yield to me and that is why I reserve the right to object, that the 90-10 royalty reality was in the form of an amendment that my colleagues chose not to make in order so that we could settle that issue. You point to it rightly as a very significant issue, and the 50-50 split would enhance the opportunities of the American public.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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 such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah, my friend Mr. Bishop, for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, not because of what it allows, but rather because of what it blocks. I am also inclined to oppose the underlying legislation, not because of the process, but rather because of the lack of progress which we have made in the last year in our efforts to protect and improve our environment.

Nearly 1 year ago to the day, I stood on this floor also with the gentleman from Utah when the House considered the fiscal year 2006 Interior, Environment and related agencies appropriations bill. Under that bill, $240 million had been cut from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Conservation funding was approximately $750 million below, or less than half of what was promised when Congress passed the Conservation and Restoration Act of 2000, and, overall, EPA's budget had been cut by $300 million.

Today, the House is being asked to consider an Interior appropriations bill that is even worse. Indeed, this is not by any fault of the Appropriations Committee, but it is the fault of the majority in this body, which has tied our hands in a knot of fiscal irresponsibility.

If this rule passes, the House will be forced to consider an Interior appropriations bill that not only includes the massive cuts from last year, but actually cuts these programs even more, so that my friends in the majority can pay for their massive tax cuts to the very wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

The underlying legislation cuts the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by another $199 million, to a level that is more than $660 million less than it was in 2001. The bill cuts funding for the Land Water Conservation Fund by $28 million, to a level that is $90 million less than it was in 2001. Overall funding for Federal land acquisition aimed at helping States preserve open spaces is cut in this bill by $98 million, a level that is more than $400 million less than 2001. This is an 86 percent cut in funding, Mr. Speaker; 86 percent.

Certainly it just can't be true that only Democrats care about preserving our lands so that future generations will enjoy them. Yet where is the outrage from the majority Members of the other side of the aisle?

Yesterday evening, the ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Committee submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that restored $800 million in funding cuts to these and other critically needed environmental programs. Mr. Obey's amendment, most importantly, was revenue neutral and would have required not one penny of additional cuts in this or any other bill. During the hearing, however, Rules Committee Republicans, along a straight party line vote, blocked Representative Obey from offering his amendment.

I am also troubled by language in the bill which overrules longstanding Presidential and Congressional moratoria for drilling for natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. This provision will permit drilling to occur as close as 3 miles to the shores of coastal States, including my home State of Florida. In doing so, the health of Florida's beaches and tourism industry, the largest industry in our State, will be in direct danger.

Let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker: Drilling for natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf will have zero impact at the gas pumps. It will not under any circumstances reduce the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

I say if supporters of lifting those moratoria are serious about reducing our dependence on foreign energy supplies then they should join me and others in calling for increased fuel conservation and investment in mass transit and alternative energy sources.

Mr. Speaker, while I cannot speak on behalf of every Member of Florida's delegation, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of us in Florida and our citizens and our Governor do not want offshore oil drilling in Florida, and we intend to do whatever is necessary to strip this provision from the bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that I am extremely grateful that under this bill Congress furthers its commitment to restoring Florida's Everglades. This is a project that is absolutely crucial to the environment and to the potable fresh water supply of many south Florida and Treasure Coast communities in my district.

My constituents and I deeply appreciate Chairman Taylor and Representative Dicks' continued efforts in this area. Equally. I was also very pleased to learn that the committee has restored the President's proposed budget cut for the Office of Environmental Justice at EPA and included the limitation language that I offered last year ensuring that EPA respects the needs of the environmental justice community.

Yet despite these positive provisions, Mr. Speaker, this bill is an overall disappointment. I firmly believe that the appropriators did the best they could do with what we gave them to work with.

Nevertheless, I find it offensive that the majority of this body is more concerned today about protecting $114,000 tax cuts for people making more than $1 million than fully funding programs which ensure that all Americans have access to clean air and drinking water.

Enforcement is not free, and neither is environmental restoration. Everyone in America shares in the responsibility of contributing her or his own share. Is there anybody in this body who is unwilling to pay just a little more to ensure that everyone in America has clean air to breathe and safe water to drink? If given the chance, who would not be willing to pool her resources with others in her neighborhood to collectively ensure that everyone has safe drinking water, or that no child will be forced to grow up playing in backyards polluted by dangerous levels of mercury and other toxins?

If the budget is about priorities, Mr. Speaker, then appropriations bills are about fiscal reality. The fiscal reality of this bill and the appropriations bill that will soon follow are that America is in trouble with the majority at the helm. Their fiscal mismanagement has placed the wishes of wealthy individuals, and I question that. I do not know whether wealthy people have made these requests. Most wealthy people I know are willing to share their resources for the collective needs of their respective communities.

Is there something in the DNA here in the majority that allows them to decide that wealthy people ought be prioritized over the collective needs of a community? The underlying legislation is, unfortunately, only the first of 11 installments this year of the grim reality of which Democrats have warned for the last 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to understand that before we finish this appropriations process all of us will understand those grim realities, for the chickens are coming home to roost.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend and fellow member on the Rules Committee, the gentlemen from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), my good friend, the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, my very good friend, Mr. Obey from Wisconsin, 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield to my good friend from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota, my classmate and friend, Mr. Pomeroy.

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

I would urge my colleague from Pennsylvania to understand that tourism is the major industry in Florida, and offshore gas drilling is nothing but the nose under the tent. There is no such thing as just gas drilling, and I do not have enough time, if you could get some time from Mr. Bishop, I would be happy to engage you ad nauseam on this subject, but when Mr. Peterson says that it is not going to be environmentally harmful, offshore gas drilling routinely dumps into the ocean spent drilling muds containing vast quantities of mercury and other toxins, contaminated produced waters that often contain radium and other dangerous substances, and additional harmful marine discharges that include benzene, toluene, lead, cadmium, and zinc.

Maybe Pennsylvania does not have the tourist industry that we do because that is right, you do not have an offshore. We do in Florida, and we are going to protect it.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider Mr. Obey's amendment to restore vital funding to the Interior appropriations bill, the amendment that was rejected in the Rules Committee last night on a straight party-line vote.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations bill is currently funded at $145 million below the fiscal year 2006 level and $800 million below the level that is needed just to maintain current services. These shortfalls will negatively impact our national parks and forests, critical environment and conservation programs, clean water programs, and services for Native Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would restore $800 million to the bill to ensure that these vital programs and services are able to continue at current levels, and that amendment is fully paid for by reducing the tax break given to those fortunate individuals among us with incomes more than $1 million annually. Their generous tax savings, which average $114,000, would be reduced by $2,000, certainly a small sacrifice to maintain these essential programs and services.

I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Interior appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on Representative Obey's amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of this amendment to restore severe funding shortfalls in this bill.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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

I thank the Chairman, and I rise in support of the CBC morally and fiscally responsible budget.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my good friend and namesake from the State of Washington for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I truly do not question the motives of my Republican colleagues who genuinely believe, in my judgment, that the legislation they might pass later today will make for good public policy. I do not impugn their motives or question their determination regarding this issue, but I do quite frankly question their fiscal sanity.

It is my belief that cutting taxes to the tune of $70 billion at a time of war and staggering human needs is, well, just financially crazy for a governmental body.

Last week, we debated port security on the floor of this House, and I heard many of my Republican colleagues say that we did not have the money to inspect all incoming containers. Well, here apparently is some extra money for that purpose.

We hear almost daily from the President that the so-called war on terrorism costs a lot of money. In fact, we face emergency spending bills on a near monthly basis in this place. Maybe instead of having the Chinese bankroll us until they call in their chips we should use some of the $70 billion that we are prepared now to give to the wealthiest Americans.

Today's headlines in all three of the biggest papers in south Florida that is represented by Republicans and Democrats, half and half alike, those papers announced the need for more Federal dollars, not a curtailing of services which this bill will ultimately mandate.

The Miami Herald front page says, ``Miami Dade 911 System Experiencing Difficulties.'' Maybe they could use a few of these $70 billion to help upgrade critical emergency communications in the Nation's eighth largest county.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the chairman simply by saying that you ignore the fact that the deficits are sky high in this surge of revenue of which you speak, and the needs, I might add, of those that are most vulnerable in our society have not been reduced. The poor and the near poor are feeling the effects of us, and what we are really

doing is we are taking care of the wealthiest people in our society. As a matter of fact, we fall in that category. Those of us that make $165,000 a year here, we are getting the benefit, and the people at the bottom that we are going to cut the services to are getting hurt.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have been very generous in yielding, and I hope at some point in the future you will do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I hear you, but what you ignore is the fact that when President Bush took office we had a surplus in this Nation and now we have deficits. I mean, we cannot keep swiping the Chinese, Japanese, Saudi Arabian card to pay for the war. You cannot have guns and butter, and I think we have proved that more times than one in this Nation.

Insofar as your argument about the wealthiest paying more taxes, let me just give you today's Washington Post and the analysis that they put forward and just use as a ``for example'' someone making $40,000 to $50,000. Their average tax savings under this particular measure will be $46. That amounts to just a little bit more than a tank of gas if you ain't driving an SUV, but someone who makes $500,000 to $1 million gets $41,000. The persons, Jane Lunch Bucket and Joe Lunch Bucket, who are in the category of $20,000 to $30,000 get $9. They cannot even buy 3 gallons of gasoline.

The Palm Beach Post front page reads today, ``Farm Workers Still Waiting on FEMA Aid,'' and I know that all too well from the calls in my office every day. So maybe some of my constituents in Bell Glade and Pahokee and Clewiston and South Bay and Canal Point might like to see a slice of this $70 billion kickback we are giving to the most well off in this country.

In the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, a large newspaper where Clay Shaw and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and I represent that area, are reports on a theft at a homeless shelter which led to $3,000 worth of spoiled food. So while we give roughly $42,000 tax cuts for those in the country making more than $1 million, a footnote right there: People making $1 million have not been flooding our offices with calls saying give me some more money. They are willing to share. But what we have gotten into is an argument here that seems to make it sound like we do not like rich people. All of us wish we were rich people, but what we are saying is that rich people have the same responsibility as all of us do in sharing and caring about the least of us in this society. People in south Florida and throughout this country are going to go hungry tonight while we go about our business here allegedly fixing their problem.

My Republican friends have and will continue to argue all today that these irresponsible tax cuts establish a strong economy and are necessary to continue this myth of growth. That is just plain old hocus-pocus, and the money that you talk about is funny money, phony money, because the deficit absorbs it any way you look at it economically.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. Facts can be stubborn things, but I think we ought to discuss them anyway. Since this President began to work with this rubber-stamp Congress, 1 million more Americans are unemployed today than there were in January 2001.

Last night, I said to the chairman, if this economy is so good, why is it I feel so broke, and I make $165,000 a year, like every other Member of the House of Representatives, and am barely able to have minimum discretionary income.

5.4 million more Americans live in poverty today than they did 6 years ago, and 6 million more Americans are without health insurance. Some 45 million Americans in all are uninsured.

And these are things we should be proud of? These are signs of a strong economy? Where is the shame? Better yet, where is the decency to those that are the least among us in this society?

How dare we absorb resources to our wealthy selves and cut spending when people here and all over the world expect better of the United States of America.

Some of the same money could be used to take care of the impoverished conditions and the significant number of people that have been pushed into lower than middle class or you could argue intent to eliminate the middle class in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that others want to speak on this critical issue so I will not go on longer right now. I think, however, that the distinguished Senator in the other body, Ms. Snowe from Maine, summed it up perfectly yesterday when criticizing this bill. After reflecting on the fact that the preponderance of the benefits of this bill go to upper income people, Senator Snowe said simply, ``It's a question of priorities.''

Indeed, it is, Mr. Speaker. We should prioritize those Americans who have the greatest needs, not those who have the greatest wealth, and when I hear the rest of what my colleagues are going to say, they are going to say all the things we are going to do before we get out of here and go have our death grip fight in November about we are going to fix it for the poor. In the meantime, some more poor just got poorer and some more rich just got richer.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

When you speak of the middle class, what is the income of the middle class?

If the chairman will continue to yield, in the calculations under the AMT as he proposes they will get between $9 and $14. That person in the middle class, how in the world is that helping them?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and remind the chairman just one thing: I think everybody in America knows the difference between $9 and $42,000, and under the AMT provision, persons making $40,000-$50,000 get $9. Under the AMT provisions, people making between $500,000 and $1 million get $42,000. That is not rocket science. That is real money that is not going to middle class people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, who can talk about industrial circumstances in her district.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Absolutely not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, in large measure to respond to the distinguished chairman from California, who is my friend.

The arguments that Chairman Dreier makes, among other things, are that Ms. Slaughter's and my arguments are tired in the sense that from an ideological point of view, we somehow or another don't understand the dynamics of wage payers providing for wage earners.

Mr. Speaker, we don't have the time to go into every nuance of persons who make a lot of money. But a lot of people that make a lot of money that are going to benefit from this tax don't hire anybody because they don't own any businesses. They have been legatees. Some of them were born rich, and all they have ever had to do is invest. But some people were born poor and have never had an opportunity to get out of that.

In essence, I believe that most Americans are willing to share. Evidence the fact that until very recently, we have been the greatest givers to charity, not the government, but individuals, and that is small and large contributors to charity. We know that there are great moral standards in this country, and among them is the fact that we, as a community, care about each other.

But you cannot convince me that you have been good economic stewards of the revenue that has come into this country. And, Mr. Chairman, you can't have it both ways.

If, as some would argue, the distinguished late President Ronald Reagan's economic policies were successful, and they were successful, those, in part, would argue because of a reduction in taxes, and at that particular time, you argue everything that happened, and you somehow skip over the success of the 1990s, I question whether or not you are mindful that during that period of time taxes were increased.

I was here, you were here when Marjorie Margolis Mezvinsky walked down this aisle in tears and cast her vote and didn't come back here. But the economy in this country took off, and we had a dynamic surplus when Bill Clinton went out of office.

Now, I don't know how you account for the trickle down of Ronald Reagan and then the fact that there was the gap that you don't allow for. But I am asking you to, at the very least, allow for the success during the Clinton administration that nobody can deny. And you can't deny that when you came into power with this President, we had a surplus, and today we have deficits as far as the eye can see.

The American public will eventually understand that we are going to pay for this stuff. And you know where President Bush is going to be? He is going to be back at his ranch. He is going to be doing good things for America as a civilian in 2009 when the baby boomers hit and all of this stuff hits the fan.

Just one more thing. This chart reflects, and I ask you to refute it if you can, Mr. Chairman, that income in dollars, 2005, the average tax saving for people making 10,000 to 20,000 is $2; 20,000 to 30,000, $9; 30,000 to 40,000, $16; 40,000 to 50,000, $46; 75,000 to 100,000; $403. 100,000 to 200,000, $1,388; $1 million, $41,977.

Now, millionaires have a right to have all the money that they can. But if you ask them, I believe that they want to share it with the poor. I believe they want to see that other 50 percent who do not have affordable housing have affordable housing. I think they want to help to cure the problems of AIDS. I don't think that they want to see people pushed out into the streets in nursing homes. I don't think that they want to see the suffering that is going on in the insufferable triumvirate of inadequate jobs, inadequate education and inadequate housing.

There may be this big boom on Wall Street, but on Main Street, there is hell to pay.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time to ask a question. Are you saying that those tax cuts didn't help this country?

And are you saying that those tax increases that you voted against and I voted for did not cause this economy to boom?

If we use that argument, my mom used to say something to me that was really interesting. She said, All you all do is go up there and say that the other people did it if it is bad, and if it is good, you did it.

If you use the doctrine of relating back, then if Bush didn't cause the deficit and Clinton didn't cause the surplus, and former President Bush didn't cause anything, and Reagan caused the economy to take off, by that standard, George Washington did it. My goodness gracious, man. The 1990s were real.

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.

A joint effort speaking well for divided government, and the precursor to what is coming in November when doubtless we have divided government again.

And we have secured the deficit that you created, or maybe it was George Washington.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of the late Celia Bell, a constituent and friend, who passed away just two weeks ago.

Celia Bell was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on May 3, 1915. She was born a twin and weighed only one and one-half pounds. Doctors had little faith the babies would survive, and indeed, one did not. But Celia not only survived, she thrived and went on to live a very full life, passing away on April 17, 2006 just a couple of weeks shy of her 91st birthday, which would have been today.

Celia married Max Kauffman on December 22, 1935 and they raised three children together: Fred Kauffman (spouse Bobbie), Hedy Goldberg (spouse Bob), and Brenda Hoelzle (spouse Bob). These three wonderful children blessed Celia and Mac with 8 grandchildren: Bret Kauffman (spouse Madie), Mark Kauffman (spouse Tracey), Eric Kauffman (spouse Debbie), Lee Hoelzle, Bryan Hoelzle (spouse Sharon), Karen Caltune (spouse Todd), and Lewis and Ellen Goldberg. When she passed away, Celia was the great-grandmother of 8 wonderful greatgrandchildren: Andrew, Michelle, Max, Brennan, Aaron, and Joshua Kaufman, and Matthew and Jarett Hoelzle. Max and Celia were married for 53 years until Max's passing in 1989.

Celia Kauffman never worked outside of her home, but always kept busy, sewing, knitting, and crocheting. In the late 1970's, Celia and Max moved to South Florida where she continued to be active in her community by volunteering her services. She bowled until the age of 85 when her arthritis forced her to stop. However, at the age of 89, she was still doing volunteer work as the water exercise instructor at her condominium pool and crocheting lap robes which were donated to nursing homes and children's services.

It gives me great pride today to honor this great American, whose legacy lives on in her children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for yielding me the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive rule, which permits the House to consider only one half of the amendments which were brought to the Rules Committee last night. Under this rule, only 15 of the approximately 30 amendments offered by Members are made in order, while the remaining half are blocked from consideration.

I find it astonishing, though not surprising, that my friends in the majority, who just in the last hour were preaching ethics reform and civility here in the House, are coming to the floor again with a restrictive rule.

The rule, which was reported out of the Rules Committee along a straight party-line vote, mocks the public's call for reforming the way we go about doing business in the people's House. Clearly, the majority is good at talking the talk, but as the American people are beginning to understand, they are failing miserably to walk the walk.

In blocking these amendments from being considered by the House today, Republicans are sending a message loud and clear that protecting their political majority in the House is more important than protecting the American people in their own homes.

Dangerously, the rule prohibits the House from considering a Democratic amendment offered by Representatives Nadler, Oberstar, Markey, and others which requires that every single shipping container be scanned and sealed before being loaded onto a ship destined for the United States.

Today, barely 5 percent of all containers coming into the United States through our ports are scanned. Unfortunately, Republicans, again along a party-line vote, blocked this commonsense security-based amendment from being debated and considered by the full House. In doing so, they have signed their names on the dotted line that they do not at this time support inspecting 100 percent screening requirements at America's ports.

Mr. Speaker, as someone who represents a district which depends greatly upon three major international ports for economic activity, I take issue with the majority's not allowing this amendment being considered today. I take issue with their conscious decision to block the House from considering an amendment which will, without a doubt, make my constituents and the American people safer.

Sadly, the rule also fails to make in order an amendment which was offered by the ranking Democrat of the Homeland Security Committee, my good friend and trusted advisor on homeland security issues, Representative Bennie Thompson from Mississippi. The ranking member's amendment recognizes that we cannot continue asking Customs officials to do more with less.

I just had this, coming from an international flight, discussion with a fine gentleman in the Customs Department. Thirty-two years he has been there, and he indicates to me just how difficult it is for them to do more with less.

The amendment that Mr. Thompson offered authorized funding for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to hire 1,600 more officers at America's seaports.

Representative Langevin offered an amendment that authorized $117 million for the purchase of advanced radiation portal monitors at all our ports to ensure that Customs officials have the most up-to-date equipment to do their job.

I kept hearing all this stuff last night about they do not have this technology and everything. Well, I have seen this technology in Vilnius, Lithuania, as one example. In Rotterdam, I saw this technology. It worked. At the very least, what we need is whatever the state of art is at this point in the hopes that it will work and that we can improve it as time progresses.

Under this rule, however, both of these amendments, Mr. Thompson's and Mr. Langevin's, and so many others are blocked from consideration.

Mr. Speaker, as I previously mentioned, I am proud to represent a region in our country which is home to some of our largest international seaports, Port Everglades, the Port of Palm Beach, and the Port of Miami, all within just minutes of my home. They have led the way in security improvements in America. The three, Port Everglades in particular, have all enjoyed national and international best- practices recognition.

So when I come to the floor today and consider the underlying legislation, I have to ask, does this legislation get our ports to where they need to be regarding security? The answer to this question is a resounding no.

I have traveled all over this world visiting international ports to learn about their operations and how they secure their cargo. Among the places that I visited have been Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Rotterdam, Lisbon, and others. These are some of the largest ports in the world outside of the United States, and all of them manage to inspect more cargo than we do without slowing down their port operations.

It was interesting to me, in the run-up to the Singapore Trade Agreement, we required in that agreement that Singapore inspect more of their cargo than we do in our own country. So I ask, if they can do it, why can we not?

The rhetoric from the other side of the aisle is at an all-time high. They talk about bipartisanship, but they shy away from working together. I give credit at least to the ranking member and Chair of this committee for trying. We give them opportunities to make good bills better, but then they block the House from considering our ideas. They talk about securing America, but then balk when it comes time to actually do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today to do something about a real problem which we all know exists at America's seaports. This is not about showing the terrorists our weaknesses, as some in the majority have suggested. Rather, it is about giving our Customs and Border Patrol officers the necessary tools and directives to do everything that they possibly can to stop attacks from happening here in the United States.

The sad thing is, Mr. Speaker, it may not be until an attack occurs that we will actually get this right.

This rule and the underlying legislation fails to meet the needs of our ports and the expectations of the American people, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule.

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

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

My colleague from Florida says that they made 10 Democrat amendments in order and five Republican amendments, and that is true. But not a single one of those is more important than the three that you did not make in order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, if we had made one amendment in order, it would have been satisfactory on this side, the one that was offered by my good friend Mr. Nadler, who I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, my

good friend, Ms. Harman from California.

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to advise each of us how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my good friend.

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

My colleague, Mr. Sessions, my friend, related earlier that in full committee these matters were debated and were voted down. I would remind him that the Nadler amendment passed in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a voice vote and that the Lungren amendment passed in the Homeland Security Committee, an appropriate jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend for that. Would the Speaker advise how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the most distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has advanced this legislation in a meaningful way, whose amendment was not, I repeat, was not allowed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 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 rules so the House can vote on important amendments offered by Homeland Security Ranking Member Thompson and Representative Langevin to increase security at our Nation's ports. Rules Committee Republicans rejected these amendments when we met last night.

The amendment would add 1,600 new Customs and Border Protection Officers at our Nation's ports. We cannot conduct more container inspections at our ports if we do not have more people. The goal of the Langevin amendment is to make sure that these Customs officials working in our ports are using the best available technology. It authorizes funds to speed up the installation of radiation portal monitors in domestic ports of entry.

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

Mr. Speaker, it just seems like common sense to me that if you want to make port facilities safer, you put more Customs officials on the ground and give them better equipment to detect and stop terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee has decided that the House is not going to debate these ideas, and in my judgment, that is a shame. Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of the SAFE Port Act, 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 for these responsible amendments to increase security at our Nation's ports. I urge my colleagues to 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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Elsa Greenberg on the occasion of her 70th birthday. Elsa was born April 25th 1936, in Providence, Rhode Island, six minutes after her twin sister Saralee. Elsa grew up in Brookline, Massachusetts and Portland, Maine, and when she was 13, she moved to Miami, Florida.

Elsa studied at the Universities of Alabama and Miami, where she learned to dance and studied education and social psychology. She was married in 1956 to Mel Greenberg, who would later found the Miami-based Greenberg Traurig law firm in 1967.

A devoted wife and mother of three children--Dianne, Carol, and Michael--Elsa was widely-known in South Florida as a thoughtful and gracious hostess, and, with Mel, a generous philanthropist and engaged citizen. She was for many years an avid classical music and tennis fan, a political devotee, and a gourmet cook, even picking up the art of macrobiotic cooking after Mel was diagnosed with cancer. Elsa and Mel were married for 38 years.

Elsa now devotes herself primarily to her family. Invariably, she can be found with her children and their spouses Steve, Mark, and Maria and her grandchildren Arik, Ditty, Daniel, Josh, Brian, Melanie, and Carolina. Elsa continues to be a refined hostess, now passing on her secrets to her family. She has also taken up knitting, amazing her family and friends with her impressive mastery of the craft. Elsa Greenberg continues to be a strong political enthusiast and is, in short, a patriotic citizen--the kind of constituent we all want in our districts.

For her commitment to her family, to her community, and to her nation, it is my privilege to wish Elsa Greenberg a very happy 70th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Philip Thornton Haire, a very good friend and a beloved figure in Clewiston, Florida and the surrounding Glades area.

Phil led a remarkable life. As a marine in World War II, he fought in the Pacific Theater, winning a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. Following his military service, Phil began a career as a radio sales executive working throughout the West and Midwest. In 1950, he moved to the Glades area, where he began his long association with radio station WSWN, known as ``Sugar 900.'' In addition to his duties in sales, he became a sports announcer, copywriter, and eventually, Vice President and General Manager.

Phil Haire was an honest, decent man who always had a smile and a kind word for people he met. He was loved and respected throughout the Glades area. Phil truly left his mark on his community and on everyone who knew him. We will all miss him greatly.

On behalf of the Members of the House of Representatives, I would like to pass along our deepest condolences to Phil's family, friends, and loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Workforce Housing Act of 2006.

Finding a moderately priced home used to be a concern solely for those with low incomes. Today, as the median price for a home in some parts of the United States is over $400,000, it has become an issue for all workers. This is especially true when only about 18 percent of the working population has enough income to purchase such a home. Other workers simply do not have the down payment needed to buy a home.

When large numbers of Americans are priced out of the housing market, it affects more than just a working family's ability to purchase a home. Communities that fail to provide affordable housing leave employers straining to find employees. The price to attract prospective workers ultimately makes essential jobs and services more difficult and more expensive for everyone.

Workers who cannot find affordable housing in or around places of employment are pressured to move further away. They endure longer commutes, use more gasoline, increase the levels of greenhouse gases, and spend more of their hard earned money on transportation. The financial impact is especially hard on low-income families who can spend 40 percent of their incomes on transportation alone.

In other cases, people are forced to seek less expensive homes elsewhere. Many of the housing alternatives they have to choose from are often built from older materials, emit more pollution, and require up to 50 percent more energy. Faulty ventilation and energy hungry appliances also increase the costs to heat, cool, and power a home. Rising energy costs required Americans to spend 24 percent more for energy in 2005 than in the previous year. Such expenditures quickly deplete any savings that working families hope to use when trying to buy a home.

Left unchecked, the shortage of affordable housing, combined with higher energy prices and increased transportation demands paralyzes employment, holds back economic growth, and leads to inflation. The Workforce Housing Act successfully addresses the challenges faced by America's current housing crisis. This bill provides badly needed assistance to help individuals and families purchase their first home and to encourage developers to build affordable workforce housing.

For those looking to purchase a home, the Workforce Housing Act creates two forms of assistance that can be used for the down payment, service charges, appraisal, and other acquisition costs to purchase a single-family home or condominium.

First, the bill creates a tax-exempt mortgage down payment account to be used for purchasing a home. This account works much like an Individual Savings Account, but can be used regardless of age and allows contributions of up to $10,000. Taxpayers that earn incomes up to 125 percent of the area median income will receive a tax credit equal to the amount of their annual contributions. The maximum credit is $2,500 for either single or married-filing-joint taxpayers. Those making below 80 percent of AMI can also receive an additional $500 credit to start the account.

Once the home is purchased, it is also possible to use any remaining funds for the future repair or replacement of items such as roofs, water heaters, or major appliances. This provision helps to ensure families can pay for these types of expenses without jeopardizing their mortgage payments.

Those who purchase homes using assistance from the Workforce Housing Act must use the home as their primary residence. To preserve the supply of homes created under this act, ownership of these homes can only be transferred to those with incomes that meet the stated affordability requirements.

Second, the Workforce Housing Act provides potential homebuyers with finance counseling and up to $15,000 in down payment assistance. Local communities have the discretion under the bill to give teachers, first responders, certain service workers, the elderly, and low-income families priority for this part of the program.

For builders, incentives are available for the construction of affordable workforce homes. Developers are allowed base incentives in the form of expedited building permits and density allowances that are above current limits when at least 25 percent of the units are priced affordably. Affordability is based on homes with a sale price that does not exceed the median purchase price for a specific area.

Additional incentives are provided in the bill for affordable workforce homes that are built near mass transit lines, with energy efficient technologies and appliances, and using active and/or passive solar technology. These incentives can be used individually or in any combination not to exceed 15 percent of the base incentive value. Local jurisdictions will determine how to utilize these incentives based on the needs of their communities.

The Workforce Housing Act is necessary to ensure there is an adequate supply of affordable housing for the people who need it most. It also provides reasonable alternatives that reduce some of the negative effects of increased energy demands. These are factors that threaten our economy, our ability to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and the viability of our cities and towns.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and urge the House leadership to bring it swiftly to the House floor for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from

Massachusetts on the Rules Committee for yielding.

I heard my colleague from Florida (Mr. Putnam) talk about it being terrible economic policy. I am curious, does that mean terrible economic policy to balance the budget?

I also heard you in your comments say that the Democrats' budget is mythical. Well, let me tell you what is not mythical. When you make bad deficits worse, that simply is not mythical. The Republican budget resolution has no plan to bring the budget back to balance and, in fact, makes the deficit $410 billion over 5 years, compared to current deficit estimates.

It calls for a mounting legacy of debt.

Since this administration took office, it has requested and the Congress has provided four increases in the statutory debt ceiling totaling $3 trillion. Under this budget as proposed by the Republicans, the statutory debt by the year 2011, footnote there, the baby boomers hit at 2009, the statutory debt will increase by another $2.3 trillion, for a total increase of $5.3 trillion. It will leave the statutory debt at a record level of $11.3 trillion. What part of that is mythical? What we are talking about is something that is going to destroy the economic base of this country.

This budget that the Democrats propose makes sure that this budget comes into balance. It does not cut, as does the Republican budget, funds for public health programs. It does not cut new money for transitional Medicaid assistance. The Republicans cut low-wage workers and vulnerable families. They cut nutrition assistance. They slash education, education, by $2.2 billion. They cut veterans care by $8.6 billion. It cuts budget functions that fund homeland security.

I am curious, what is the myth that you would perpetuate upon the public when we are about to go down the drain?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, my very good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule, which blocks every single Member in this body from offering an amendment to the 527 Reform Act of 2006. This bill would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and require, among other things, certain political organizations involved in Federal election activities to register with the Federal Election Commission.

Yesterday, during the Rules Committee hearing, the majority on the committee reported out a closed rule. In doing so, this limited any opportunity for the House to fully vet this important issue. If Congress is the place for true deliberation of all points of view, then I ask, why are the Republicans so hasty to ramrod this bill through without opportunities to amend? Surely the majority realizes that abolishing spending limits is a move that intentionally pushes aside the interests of women, minorities, and other voters who may not be a part of the Republican base and therefore apparently are not worthy of regard. Or is it simply a maneuver to deny us serious debate about viable alternatives, such as one from Massachusetts offered by Representative Tierney? Representative Tierney's amendment, had it been made in order, would have completely eliminated the ability of industries and interest groups to unduly influence elections. His idea? The full public financing of elections. This proposal, which Republicans have blocked from consideration, is the only one that I have heard to date that completely protects the integrity of our elections and public policymaking process.

I am equally disappointed that my very good friends, Representatives

Wynn and Pence, were denied an opportunity to offer their bipartisan proposal before the House. Let us force candidates to get themselves elected based on the merits of their argument rather than the depth of their campaign accounts, which have been padded heavily by the richest of U.S. industries.

One can only imagine what the Medicare bill would have looked like if the pharmaceutical industry hadn't contributed the hundreds of millions in campaign contributions to the President and Republican candidates. What about the energy bill, reeking with billion dollar tax breaks for energy companies? What would that bill have looked like if it weren't for campaign contributions to Members of Congress?

If we want to get serious about corruption in Congress, then we have to get serious about corruption in our elections. For those in America, myself included, who believe that outside influences have too much control in the political process, I say take them out of the process. Make it illegal for them to write campaign checks and support publicly financed congressional elections.

Seats in this and the other body are for sale to the highest bidder. But the majority of the American people do not have enough money to buy them.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have us to believe that this legislation, among other things, protects the integrity of campaign finance because it brings 527s out of secrecy. This is a false claim that could not be further from the truth.

My good friend, Representative Dreier, cited Common Cause. I guess it is about time for me to cite a former colleague of his and mine, Pat Toomey, the president of the Club for Growth; or John Berthoud, the president of the National Taxpayers' Union; or David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union; or Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform. All of these peoples are opposed to this measure.

It is kind of interesting to me in Congress how up gets to be down and down gets to be up. But 527s are far from the clandestine operations that some may want us to believe. 527s do not operate behind closed doors. If you think they do, ask John Kerry. Their work combines social awareness, advocacy, and political activities that provide everyone with tools for political knowledge.

Receipts and expenditures from 527s must be publicly disclosed and made available. In fact, 527s are already required by law to register with and report to the Internal Revenue Service. Their name is actually derived from the section of the United States Tax Code that regulates their financial activities. I think that we would all agree that it is difficult to have much more oversight than the Internal Revenue Service.

The administration and their friends in the Republican majority also intend for this new legislation to simultaneously stamp out free speech, voter outreach and the free flowing exchange of ideas. Unfettered political speech, be it at issues in the mail, by phone, on TV, on the radio, and especially over the Internet, is the basis for why our Founding Fathers fought so hard to make it a part of the very first amendment in our Constitution.

These are the tools Americans use to make informed decisions on the political issues before them. These are the activities that register people to vote, bring them to the polls, and engage them in necessary debate.

We should take heed from those who are only now establishing free and fair elections in some parts of the world. They found out the hard way that once freedom of speech eroded, it began a slippery slope that soon crushed their liberties as well as their governments.

Any time the majority wants to get serious regarding campaign finance and the influence of campaign dollars in the House, Democrats stand ready to have that discussion. And I am having a hard time understanding if way out there in America that people really do know the difference between soft money and hard money. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues for the sake of free speech and for the sake of a campaign process in which we all believe to oppose this closed rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip, my very good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to tell both sides of the remaining amount of time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend, (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers at this time and I am prepared to go forward.

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

Apparently my good friend, and he is my good friend, from Connecticut was not mindful that there were 100 Members of the House of Representatives who wrote to the FEC asking that the McConnell v. FEC decision be upheld.

But I don't want to get bogged down in all of these legal mores. The simple fact of the matter is that if we intend to do something that would make a difference, we could all support public financing. I challenge any of you to tell me that that would not cure the problems that we continue to talk about.

I also would urge my friend from Connecticut, who argues about loopholes, to ask the chairman what I say about laws that we pass here. You show me a law and I will show you a loophole. I have been involved in politics as long as anybody in this room, and for the 41 years that I have been involved, we have continued to reform campaign finance by calling it campaign finance reform. Every time we reform it, the Republicans or the Democrats, the majority or the minority, somebody comes up with a way to get around the law.

So make this one, if you will, Mr. Chairman, and be mindful of all of the people that have spoken with reference to the myth that I think that you perpetuate. One of the biggest myths, the National Review says, is that this bill would level the playing field. That is language you used earlier, Mr. Chairman, ending the ability of the wealthy to fund propaganda. This is completely false, according to the National Review. Wealthy individuals would still be free to say whatever they want, whenever they want. The proposal would end only the ability of individuals of lesser means to pool their money to independently speak out on issues.

The simple fact is when you cite to the law, my recollection is you didn't say anything at all about Buckley v. Valeo, which simply said in its holding that money is speech, and that is ultimately what winds up happening here.

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, if it does, it will bring H.R. 4682, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006 to the House floor for consideration.

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 go reforming campaign finance laws and telling those on the outside what they can and cannot do, I think we need to fix up our own house. H.R. 4682 is a comprehensive reform package introduced by Leader Pelosi that is designed to clean up this Congress and show the American people we are serious about our roles as legislators and that we put the people we represent first.

This bill does many things. It curbs the abuses of power by stopping the practice of keeping votes open to twist arms and lobbying Members on the floor of the House. It shuts down the K Street Project by making it a criminal offense and violation of the House rules to take or withhold official action or threaten to do so with the intent to influence private employment decisions. It ends the practice of adding special interest provisions to conference reports in the dead of night and behind closed doors. It imposes strict and enforceable new disclosure requirements on lobbyists. It curbs abuses of power and it blocks cronyism and corrupt contracting practices that endanger our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world.

It is important for Members to know that defeating the previous question will not, I repeat, will not, block the underlying bill. H.R. 513 will still be considered by the House. But by voting ``no'' on the previous question, we will be able to consider the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act under a completely open rule that gives all Members of this body the opportunity to be heard on this matter.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the people of the Republic of Haiti for holding successful democratic elections on February 7, 2006. I would also like to congratulate their chosen successor, Mr. Rene Preval.

I commend the people of Haiti for their active commitment to and unbridled belief in democracy. On such an auspicious occasion, the best way we can honor the Republic of Haiti is by continuing to lend our support through economic and humanitarian policy that encourages development, not dependency.

While elections are the necessary first step towards democracy in Haiti, there still remains a long road ahead. It is crucial that we, the United States, do not continue to perpetuate the legacy of interference and neglect in Haitian affairs.

We must work with the newly elected President of the Republic of Haiti, Rene Preval, and we must work with Haitians in both Haiti and the U.S. to make their dreams of sustained democracy and prosperity a reality.

Several of my distinguished colleagues, myself included, have a significant number of Haitian constituents in our district. It is my sincerest hope that we will work to bring their home country out of the grips of poverty and despair once and for all so that Haiti's rich, yet tumultuous, past will finally evolve into a future of sustained success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing $3 million annually over the next ten years for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. Additionally, my legislation requires the President to include a line item request in his budget proposal every year. I am pleased to be introducing this bill with the support of the Democratic Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

In December 2004, President Bush signed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act into law. Included in this bill was language establishing the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, a cornerstone recommendation of the 9-11 Commission. The Commission understood that in the emotional aftermath of September 11th, it was important to provide objective oversight of the protection of our cherished civil liberties.

This oversight is the main purpose of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. The Board has been established to review proposed regulations and Executive Branch policies' effects on civil liberties, particularly related to the War on Terrorism.

Many saw the creation of this board as a promising step in protecting us from terrorism while maintaining the civil rights of everyone. However, more than a year after the legislation was signed into law, the Board has yet to hold its first meeting. As a matter of fact, the first Board members were only approved a year ago. Even more, because the Board is housed within the Office of the President and operates at the behest of the Administration, Congress itself is not able to appropriate $1 for its operation because we never authorized any spending. With no substantive work performed by the Board to date, it's as though the Board only exists in the spirit of the law--not in its letter. If that was Congress's true intent, then the Board might as well only exist on paper, or as an illusion in our minds. But it wasn't, and that's why this legislation is absolutely necessary.

Realize, Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing lack of support for the Board has come from the Administration itself. In the President's budget request for fiscal years 2005 through 2007 and the requests for supplemental funding, there have been no funds requested specifically for Board operations. Zero! Without this funding, the Board cannot even buy a pencil much less develop a plan to accomplish its tasks.

The Administration's failure to fund the office, coupled with the inactivity of the Board, leads one to question the commitment of the Administration to ensuring the protection of privacy and civil liberties. Does the Administration welcome an objective review on civil rights issues regarding its terrorism policies or would it rather govern in a vacuum? Would the President rather operate behind closed doors without questions from, or accountability to, any oversight board? Unchecked policies shrouded in secrecy will do nothing to help this country maintain checks and balances between safety and civil rights.

The bill I am introducing authorizes $3 million in annual funding for the Board so that Congress can do what the President has failed to do. This funding level will ensure that adequate resources are available for sufficient staff and resources to support critical statutorily mandated activities of the Board. This includes reviewing proposed regulations and policies related to countering terrorism, the implementation of laws, regulations and policies related to countering terrorism, and advising the President and department heads on matters impacting privacy and civil liberties.

It's time that we demand that the Administration stop dragging its feet on funding the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. If civil liberties are of any concern to this body and the President then there is no reason to stall the progress of the Board by denying it the money it needs to get started. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to fully fund the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board so that it can get about the business of protecting the liberties and security of all Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the restrictive rule and the underlying legislation reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

As our colleague from Texas has already noted, the rule makes in order 15 amendments to be offered by Members from both sides of the aisle. But what he did not mention is that the rule blocks 10 other amendments which were considered yesterday in the Rules Committee. It blocks them from being offered on the floor today.

Included in the 10 blocked amendments is a proposal offered by my good friend, Representative Bean, that would have required the Government Accounting Office to examine the unintended effects of hyperactive disorder drugs.

At a time when more and more children and adults are being diagnosed with some form of attention deficit disorder, this study could go a long way towards helping all of us better understand the problem. Yet my friends in the majority on the Rules Committee blocked this amendment from being considered. Perhaps it is because they do not want to address the issue, or perhaps it is because they are trying to defeat Representative Bean in November. Whatever the reason, the House will not have the opportunity to consider this important amendment today because the rule prohibits it.

The rule also does not permit Representative Waters from offering her amendment, which would have required the ONDCP to develop objectives for reducing drug overdoses and the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. Her commonsense amendment, too, is blocked from consideration under the rule. So while this rule is certainly more generous than most of those in the past, it is not by any stretch of the imagination open.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to dwell on the specifics of this legislation, which we all agree is important and necessary. I do, however, wish to speak briefly about the issues facing our communities, mine specifically, due to drug abuse and our failed efforts to rehabilitate abusers.

A little history, first. In 1971, President Nixon declared the so- called modern-day ``war on drugs.''

He characterized drug abuse as ``America's Public Enemy No. 1.'' He argued that drug addiction is a public problem. Since then, since 1971, Congress has attempted to pass laws, or passed laws, that cracked down on drug usage and harshly punished those who used these addictive poisons.

Though our intentions have largely been sincere, we have yet to institute policies that reflect a comprehensive understanding of this continuing problem. In America's black communities, minimum sentencing guidelines instituted by Congress and State legislatures for drug offenders and for other nonviolent crimes have had a lasting effect that will linger for generations to come.

Consider this: under current Federal law, the mandatory minimum sentence for being caught with 1 ounce of crack cocaine, a drug that the statistics show is more likely to be used by blacks than anyone else in our country, that mandatory minimum is longer than the mandatory minimum sentence for being caught with the exact same amount of powder cocaine, a drug that the statistics have shown is more likely to be used by whites than anyone else.

Even more, mandatory sentencing guidelines prohibit judges from using reasonable discretion to rehabilitate and not incarcerate the persons that are abusers. As a direct result of these draconian and discriminatory laws, black men in America are nearly 10 times more likely to be incarcerated for drug use than white males, notwithstanding the fact that they had the same amount; it was just nuanced as crack or powder cocaine.

Tens of thousands of black children are growing up in America in single-parent households, often plagued by poverty. Sure, drug usage is certainly a component of that problem. But the senseless mandatory locking up of first-time nonviolent drug offenders has done more to tear black and white families apart in America than almost anything else.

Drug prevention programs, such as those authorized in the underlying legislation, are important, as is the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The 1990 designation of south Florida as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area has been very useful in directing Federal resources into our region to stop or attempt to stop the flow of drugs into the State and country.

I supported efforts under different programs, different administrations, Republican and Democratic, when I was a Federal judge two decades ago. I continue to support them today.

Nevertheless, I refuse to accept that our drug policies have had the positive effect that so many in this body claim. Drugs are still easily accessible on our streets and in our schools, and our drug laws are senseless, outdated, and in dire need of revision.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a day when the Members of this body will be willing to have a meaningful debate about the successes and the failures of Federal drug policies and mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. Only then will we fully recognize how big a failure our policies have been and take the necessary, indeed the appropriate, steps, to rehabilitate, not write off drug abusers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend this rule to allow a vote today to block the President's plan to turn over our Nation's ports to a government-run company in Dubai.

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.

My amendment provides that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up legislation that does two things, undergirding what my good friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, mentioned in his remarks earlier.

First, it stops the President from moving forward with his deal to transfer operations at a number of our Nation's busiest ports, including the Port of Miami immediately south of my district, to the Government of Dubai state-owned Dubai Ports World. This is the identical language that was offered in the Appropriations Committee yesterday by Chairman Lewis and later adopted by the committee on yesterday.

Secondly, the legislation would strengthen the process by which our government reviews future foreign takeovers. Specifically, it would require that all foreign transactions that could result in foreign control of any entity engaged in interstate commerce to undergo a thorough review that mandates the direct involvement of the President and the Congress. Whatever Members believe about the Dubai agreement, the House should be guaranteed an up-or-down vote on whether or not we want to turn control of a significant number of our Nation's ports over to a company that is owned by a foreign government.

This administration, without consulting the Congress, negotiated a secret backroom deal to turn the management of our vital ports over to a foreign entity. The House must be involved in this process that directly affects our national security now and in the future. We are sent to Washington to protect this Nation and its citizens. We owe it to them to make sure this type of deal is never allowed to slip through the system again.

I want to emphasize that this vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the agenda of the Republican majority. A ``no'' vote will allow those of us concerned about the safety and security of America's ports to offer an alternative plan right here and right now.

It is a vote to consider homeland security priorities for the American people which the majority today has refused to consider.

I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up legislation that gives Congress the right to cast a vote and be heard on this matter of significant national security. I wish to repeat that: I urge all Members, both sides, to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up legislation so that we can do our job that gives Congress the right, just the right, to cast a vote and to be heard on this matter of significant national security.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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