Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Republican majority's ill-sighted budget resolution.

This budget goes beyond bad all the way to dangerous. It's dangerous for our country, and it's dangerous for Florida. This budget cuts the COPS program by 96 percent, a program which has put over 7,000 police officers on Florida streets. Their budget cuts more than $40 million from homeland security formula grants in the state of Florida alone. The President is clearly unaware there is more to defending our homeland than invading foreign countries.

But the addled decision-making in the Republican budget doesn't stop there. The Majority is proposing to decimate countless invaluable social welfare programs from Medicaid to Head Start and Even Start. It cuts almost $200 million in funding for Florida housing, employment counseling, transitional assistance, and small business loans. This budget also includes significant cuts to veterans' health care. What a great message to send to our troops: Thanks for serving your country, but now you're on your own.

The Republican budget also fails our nation's youth. The budget cuts TRIO funding by over $700,000 in my district, and over $10 million just in the state of Florida. These costs will result in a loss of over 11,000 students to the TRIO program in the state of Florida. Without these programs, these students will not make it to college. This is not a prediction, it's a fact.

I meet with representatives from various organizations in my district every day. Yesterday, I met with 31 people from different types of organizations. Every one of them told me their programs are being cut, and they don't know how they are going to survive because it is going to affect their programs ranging from children to the elderly to people without housing.

I've met with local officials telling me the same thing. These budget cuts are forcing them to seek alternative means of revenue. In other words, taxes. I don't know if citizens will be taxed here in Washington or in Ft. Pierce or Riviera Beach, but somewhere along the line we are going to have to learn to share the responsibility for giving our communities the support they need.

Where will all this money supposedly trimmed from the national budget go? Well, clearly not to balance the budget or solve the federal deficit crisis. The Republican budget will result in a spending deficit of $376 billion in 2006 alone. Unbelievably, this figure does not include the costs of several ill-conceived Republican initiatives such as the costs of privatizing social security or the President's war in Iraq.

We have all heard President Bush tout his grand scheme to privatize social security, yet not only has he put forth no coherent plan to do so, but he has failed to include the financial requirements of such a plan. Vice President Cheney has suggested ``transition costs'' of up to $2 trillion or more. How can this cost not be included in any budget proposal?

But there are alternatives. Both the Congressional Black Caucus and Representative Spratt have suggested sane alternatives to the Republican madness. Both of these budgets represent an approach to meeting the needs of regular Americans while maintaining the fiscal responsibility this nation needs.

Mr. Chairman, I was going to stand here and tell you that the Republicans are balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, but they are not balancing this budget on anyone's backs because this budget doesn't reach that far! The people that are hurt by this budget are not only the poor but the average American. As Members of Congress, we have

a solemn responsibility to protect the welfare of all our nation's citizens, and the Republican budget fails to meet that responsibility.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this damaging and devastating attack on the social welfare of this country masquerading as a budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with Representatives Rehberg, Herseth, and Osborne to introduce the National Drought Preparedness Act. The companion to our bill is will also be introduced in the other body by Senators Pete Domenici and Max Baucus in the near future.

In 1998, Congress passed legislation creating the National Drought Policy Commission. The Commission was tasked with the responsibility to examine current U.S. policy on drought. To summarize the Commission's fifty-page report in a few short words, ``The U.S. does not have a policy on drought.''

I wish I had just made a joke. The fact that we don't have a drought policy, however, is a joke--and not a good one at that.

Drought is not just an agriculture issue, nor is it only a water management issue. When droughts occur, forest fires erupt, small businesses close, crop yields decrease, and in many instances, people die.

In my home state of Florida, we are always taking steps to mitigate the affects of hurricanes and floods--regardless of what season it is. In the Midwest, similar efforts are made to plan for tornadoes, and in the West, the same could be said for wildfire prevention and earthquakes.

It is time for America to move away from the costly, ad-hoc, and response-oriented approach to drought, and toward a more pro-active approach that focuses on preparation and planning. Coordination between federal, state, and local governments, in addition to watershed groups, farmers and ranchers, and resource dependent businesses, is the only way we will successfully curb the effects of drought before we find ourselves in one. The bill we are introducing today provides a new focus on an otherwise often ignored natural disaster.

Our bill accomplishes four major goals.

First, the bill begins to move the country away from the costly, ad- hoc, and response-oriented approach to drought, and toward a more pro- active approach focused on preparation and planning. The new national policy will

provide the tools and focus for Federal, State, tribal and local governments to address the diverse impacts and costs caused by drought.

Second, the bill will improve the delivery of Federal drought programs. To ensure improved program delivery, integration and leadership, the National Drought Preparedness Act establishes the National Drought Council under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Council will provide the coordinating and integrating function for the more than 80 federal drought programs currently in existence.

Third, the bill establishes new tools for drought preparedness planning. Building on current water policy, the Drought Council will assist states, local governments, tribes, and other entities in the development and implementation of drought preparedness plans. The bill does not mandate state and local planning, but is intended to facilitate the development and implementation of drought plans through the establishment of a Drought Assistance Fund. Importantly, the bill also preserves state authority over water allocation.

Fourth, the bill improves our forecasting and monitoring abilities. Under our legislation, the Drought Council will facilitate the development of the National Integrated Drought Information System in order to improve the characterization of current drought conditions and the forecasting of future droughts, as well as provide a better basis to trigger federal drought assistance.

Mr. Speaker, the creation of a coordinated and comprehensive National Drought Council will provide efficient and time sensitive coordination between federal agencies in preparing for and responding to droughts, as well as assisting Congress in identifying our immediate and long term needs in providing drought relief.

I am looking forward to working with my colleagues and moving this bill forward. Americans are hurting throughout this country today because of water shortages and prolonged droughts. Congress must act immediately, and time is of the essence.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge the House leadership to bring this bill to the floor for its swift consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution that supports the goal of increased homeownership in the United States and recognizes the importance of homeownership programs, fair lending laws, and fair housing laws in achieving those goals.

This resolution specifically urges the President to designate April 2005 as National Fair Housing Month. It also urges the House of Representatives to recommit itself to making fair housing and homeownership a legislative priority in the 109th Congress.

We owe it to our constituents and the American people to support first-time homeownership programs, which help families who have never owned a home experience the benefits of home ownership.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution contains the importance of first-time homeownership, combating disparities in minority home ownership, and fighting the scourge of predatory lending. As the land of opportunity, we must ensure that all U.S. citizens are given a fair opportunity to achieve the American Dream, a significant component of which is homeownership.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. As Members of Congress, it is our moral responsibility to ensure that all citizens have the opportunity to purchase a home, no matter their ethnicity, race, or religion. I look forward to working with my colleagues and moving this promising resolution forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 135, the House Democracy Assistance Commission Resolution. This Resolution forms a commission within the House of Representatives to assist emerging democracies around the world. As the standard-bearer for a modern democratic nation, it is only fitting that Congress lend its expertise to all countries attempting to follow our example.

In the previous decade, Congress formed a task force to provide equipment and technical assistance to emerging democracies in Eastern and Central Europe. The results of that task force, known as the ``Frost-Solomon Task Force,'' can be seen in the strengthening of the democratic institutions in these countries. The recent elections in Ukraine are a perfect example of how democracy is beginning to take hold in these nations. One of the hallmarks of a truly democratic nation is the smooth transition of power from one political party to another. While democracy eventually prevailed in Ukraine, the political turmoil during its elections serves as a reminder of how new and fragile these democracies are. It is crucial that we, as a nation, continue to support all countries in their progress towards maintaining a stable democracy.

The establishment of a commission to lend assistance to these emerging democracies is an important and common-sense action Congress can take to support and foster the global spread of democracy. This commission will lend experience and expertise to nations around the world. It will further allow members and staff of parliaments of selected countries to visit the House of Representatives and its support agencies in order to gain first hand knowledge. This commission is a valuable and cost-effective diplomatic tool our nation can employ to assist in spreading the freedom of democracy around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the formation of a commission to assist emerging democracies. I urge my colleagues' support for this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 101, a resolution urging the European Union to add Hezbollah to the European Union's list of terrorist organizations.

Over the past two decades, Hezbollah has been synonymous with terror, suicide bombings and kidnappings. This Iran-backed, Lebanese-based terrorist group serves as an umbrella organization of radical Islamic Shiite groups and entities. Hezbollah, which the U.S. government estimates consists of several thousand militants, has balked at recent U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring it to disarm. This terrorist group is responsible for nearly 200 attacks since 1982 that have killed more than 800 people. Its political rhetoric includes calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Most recently, both Israeli and Palestinian officials noted an alarming increase in Hezbollah support for terrorism in the Palestinian territories. The organization enjoys funding of $10 million to $20 million monthly from Iran, a country that continues to seek a nuclear weapon.

U.S. intelligence has shown that Hezbollah cells operate in Europe, Africa, South America, and North America. Hezbollah's reported involvement in the 1983 suicide bombing attack that killed 241 United States Marines in Beirut and other acts of atrocities begs its inclusion to the European Union's list of terrorist organizations.

Mr. Speaker, a critical part of the war on terror is identifying terrorist threats and the organizations and people who carry out acts of atrocity. I am encouraged by the European Union Parliament's passing of a resolution urging the European Union leadership and the member governments to list Hezbollah as a terrorist entity. I applaud this step and hope that it leads to the inclusion of Hezbollah on the European Union's list of terrorist organizations.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and I ask Members in their offices who knew the person that I rise to speak about to take cognizance of the fact that we regret to announce the death of one of our revered former Members.

William Lehman died today. A real giant among human beings has passed and is transitioning. I am sure I speak for all of us in this body that knew him and especially those of us in the Florida delegation in expressing our heartfelt condolences to the Congressman's family.

The funeral arrangements are pending. It is my understanding that the funeral will be at 1 p.m. on Sunday. Those that knew Bill, he was referred to some times as Alabama Bill, he was a mentor, friend, humanitarian, and humble servant of humankind.

He provided transportation for thousands through his variety of auto dealerships and then as a distinguished Member of this body chairing the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. He helped to provide the funding for those of us that have seen his vision come alive in the form of transportation measures in south Florida and around this Nation. He will be sorely missed.

I can assure Members that it would be appropriate to stay in contact with his family with their condolences.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Iraqi Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2006. To call this legislation a travesty is to put it nicely. It is nothing but $81 billion of chaos blanketed in lofty-sounding phrases like ``tsunami relief'' and ``supporting our troops.'' Actually, this bill represents a mockery of the democratic process.

Calling this bill an ``Emergency Supplemental'' implies that the Bush Administration and Congress were somehow not aware of these costs. That is ridiculous. The only unforeseen cost contained in this $81 billion dollar boondoggle is the $656 million for tsunami relief.

Both Congress and the Administration have known for months that $75 billion in the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be needed, but we didn't put it in the budget. The real story is that the Bush Administration is attempting to hide from the American people the real costs of a mismanaged war.

The Administration once claimed the war in Iraq would cost $1.7 billion. This Supplemental alone is almost 50 times that amount. Is the Administration out to lunch?

Tomorrow, the House is going to consider a budget resolution that, like the previous year, fails to include adequate funding for the war in Iraq. I'm not a soothsayer, Mr. Speaker, but dare I warn, ``Beware of the Ides of March.'' If tomorrow's Republican budget is passed, we're going to be here next March writing the Bush Administration another check to cover the costs of its campaign of nation building.

The Bush Administration is hiding behind the rhetoric of supporting our troops to escape accountability for the war in Iraq, and the American people should be outraged. We should be embarrassed that Members in this body are so willing to write blank checks to a President who has yet to justify how the $175 billion in already appropriated money in Iraq and Afghanistan has been spent.

Mr. Chairman, I am even more appalled by the manner in which funding for clandestine operations is being carried out in this bill. This bill allocates a massive amount of money for covert operations, yet the Department of Defense did not see fit to go through either of the two House authorizing committees of jurisdiction. Congress is creating a private bank account for Secretary Rumsfield without any oversight or permission from the United States Congress. Is this what the American people want--government by fiat?

Mr. Chairman, our government has a process, and this process is vital to preserving the nature of our democracy. I shouldn't have to explain that. All of the Bush Administration's rhetoric about global freedom apparently does not extend to the United States Capitol Building. What is more important for the Bush Administration is that they get their money at all and any costs. I guess that means they will sell this bill on the altruistic notions of patriotism and humanitarianism in a snide attempt to drum up support.

Why is this bill being dubbed a tsunami relief effort when the entire Supplemental is over 120 times the amount allocated for the tsunami? What about the six hundred million dollars to build the world's biggest embassy in Baghdad? What are they building this thing out of--pure lead? That same amount of money could go towards vital security upgrades at other embassies and consulates around the world.

Why don't we just make things easier on everyone by throwing this bill out the window and opening up everyone's bank accounts to the United States Executive Branch? Now that's privatization.

This isn't a question of patriotism, nor is it a question of our commitment to helping tsunami victims recover. This is an issue with short and long-term constitutional and budgetary ramifications.

I realize that the Bush Administration feels it would be easier to simply govern without any input or oversight, but the first three Articles of the Constitution suggest otherwise.

I cannot in good conscience support legislation that, for all we know, might pour billions in the pockets of Halliburton while depriving our troops of necessary resources. And I can't imagine why the United States Congress, led by the Appropriations Committee, is handing a leash to the White House and waiting to be taken out for a walk.

Mr. Chairman, I am outraged by this crass attempt to shirk congressional responsibility, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 199, recognizing the contributions of the Marine Corps and the other branches of the United States Armed Forces on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima during World War II. The commemoration of these branches of the military, and most importantly the soldiers who fought in this battle, is crucial. We must take into account every day the bravery and dedication that the men and women of the Armed Forces have shown us.

The United States military sent more Marines into Iwo Jima--110,000-- than in any other battle in World War II. The Air Force and Navy also played pivotal roles in securing a victory for the United States.

The 36-day battle that began on February 19, 1945 was an arduous campaign for the United States, largely due to the underground bunkers the Japanese had built. These subterranean caves allowed the Japanese to see the Marines, but the U.S. soldiers had no visual on the Japanese. After days of battle and U.S. casualties totaling over 25,000, our troops finally took control of Mount Suribachi, securing victory for the United States of America and the Allied Forces.

The image of soldiers like Mike Strank, Harlon Block, and Franklin Sousley raising our flag in glory, as portrayed by the Iwo Jima Memorial, reminds us of the perseverance and devotion to country exemplified by the Armed Forces. Because of these acts of bravery and dedication, we stand here free today.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude by again reiterating my support for the recognition of the Marine Corps and other branches of the Armed Forces on the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima. The characteristics of strength, devotion, and honor ring strong in our hearts today and always, as we recall all those who fell in one of the most important battles in U.S. history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medical Bills Interest Rate Relief Act, a bill to protect Americans from going bankrupt due to high medical costs. Many families and individuals are forced deep into debt by the combination of large medical bills and excessively high interest rates.

The journal Health Affairs recently reported that over two million people are financially ruined by health care costs every year, and these debtors are 42 percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. In fact, many of those bankrupted are middle class and have insurance, and so do not qualify for additional assistance.

A constituent of mine from Margate, Florida was faced with just this situation. He was unable to fully meet the repayment schedule demanded by the hospital. Because he had insurance, he was also unable to qualify for further assistance. The hospital reported him to his credit bureau, which then raised his interest rate to an astronomical level, pushing his financial stability to the very edge of bankruptcy.

My constituent is currently selling his home in order to avoid bankruptcy. This is simply unfair. My constituent did not overspend on luxury gifts, buy a fancy car, or take extended vacations. Instead, his family was slammed by an unpredictable and unpreventable medical catastrophe that was no fault of their own. There should be a level of protection for them and the millions of other Americans who struggle to make ends meet.

Mr. Speaker, credit card issuers tie interest rates to the timely repayment of debt. But many Americans, such as my constituent, are faced with sudden, extremely high medical expenses that simply cannot be repaid within the same constraints as ordinary expenses. Thus, their credit card interest rates may rise dramatically, resulting in an even more burdensome financial situation.

My legislation alleviates this problem by requiring credit card companies to maintain the lowest interest rates possible for persons repaying medical care costs, based on the customers' previous credit rating prior to incurring those costs. My bill further protects patients and families by prohibiting hospitals from reporting for 5 years patients who cannot meet the mandated repayment schedule, provided that those patients demonstrate good faith by maintaining a repayment of 20 percent of their medical expenses. This ensures that patients receive some level of protection from imminent financial disaster while hospitals are also assured of recovering debt.

The extraordinarily high cost of medical care is an enormous burden on American families. Unfortunately, many medical expenses are unforeseen, and the expenses associated with emergency catastrophic care can literally destroy a family's finances. Our constituents should never have to choose between the health and life of a loved one and the financial constraints of medical care.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill to protect all Americans from the crushing burden of medical costs.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the many achievements and contributions that Scottish-Americans have made to the United States. I have long touted the importance of immigration as a source of strength for our Nation, and I am gratified to see the Scottish-American immigrant population be recognized by this House Resolution.

Scottish-Americans have made significant contributions to American society and have played an influential role in the history of our country. Not only was Alexander Hamilton, one of our founding fathers, a Scottish-American, but at least eleven U.S. Presidents were also of Scottish descent. Among the ranks of proud Scottish-Americans were almost half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and two of the first Supreme Court Justices. Andrew Carnegie, one of this country's most successful entrepreneurs and philanthropists, came to this country as a poor Scottish immigrant.

To honor the contributions of Scottish immigrants, it is appropriate that Congress recognize April 6 as ``National Tartan Day.'' The recognition by Congress that immigrants of all backgrounds contribute immeasurably to our success as a nation is a sentiment to which I could not more strongly agree.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the achievements of the Scottish-American community. On behalf of this body, I express my support for establishing April 6 as ``National Tartan Day'' and congratulate the Scottish-American community on their numerous contributions to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) motivated me to come to the floor when he suggests that the Democrats do not have a plan for Social Security.

I would say to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), it is the President of the United States that proposed that Social Security should be privatized. During the last recess, the President's Day recess, Democrats went home, and almost every one of the House Democrats, except 40, held town meetings. I want the gentleman to know that most of his colleagues did not hold town meetings on Social Security at all for the reason that you really do not want to put your plan on the table.

The Democrats are ready when you bring your plan. The last time I looked over there, you all were in charge. I do not recall that we have to do anything at all in that regard.

But we are going to fix Social Security. The question is, are you going to fix Medicare and Medicaid? Are you going to do something about prescription drugs? Are you going to do something about inadequate education, inadequate housing and inadequate jobs in this country? I think that is what we need to be looking at.

We will fix Social Security, if you put something on the table.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, let us do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for the time. This is the first rule of which I hope are many that the gentleman and I are managing together. He has already been welcomed to the committee, so I extend those same warm welcomes to him for managing this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule which limits debate on how this body should operate if it experiences mass causality. This is an issue of grave importance to the American people and the integrity of that democracy in times of dire crisis.

The decision of the majority to place any restrictions on this body prohibiting Members from offering amendments and freely debating the subject is not responsible.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 changed the way that we as a country operate. In turn, Congress has rightfully committed itself to creating policy that protects Americans from future attacks, though I question how successful we have been in our actions. September 11 also presented us with a challenge to consider continuity in the House during a worst-case scenario. In examining such a grim situation, we must foresee what will be needed to regain stability and reassure the American people and the world that our government is going about business as usual.

While I believe that the underlying legislation is an honest attempt to address the concerns which I just raised, the discussion surrounding the issue has been, as one constitutional scholar wrote, embarrassingly partisan. Even more, the product of 3 years of discussion on the issue that the majority is bringing to the floor is incomplete, unrealistic, and fails to consider the implications of changing statute when we should be amending the United States Constitution.

The underlying legislation requires the States to hold special elections within 45 days in the case of extraordinary circumstances. This is a problematic requirement. When the Committee on House Administration took testimony from State and local election officials, it was told that 45 days is not enough time to pull off a primary and general election. Election officials noted that mailing ballots to absentee, overseas, and military voters for a primary and general election and then waiting for their return would alone take more than 45 days. This does not include the time that it takes to print and process ballots.

Should this time period be adopted, it would undoubtedly result in the disenfranchisement of millions, including

seniors who vote absentee, our diplomatic corps, and our men and women serving in our Armed Forces.

The majority finally agreed with Democrats and local election officials yesterday that 45 days is not enough time to conduct these critical elections. Late last night we were informed that my friends on the Republican side are now seeking to amend the rule so that they may offer a manager's amendment which will increase the time elections must be conducted from 45 to 49 days. Four days, Mr. Speaker. What can you realistically do in 4 more days?

This is more of a cosmetic and convenient change than substantive. It still sets up a process that will lead to the selection of Members of Congress who are potentially not the real choice of the citizenry. All of this is happening at the same time my friends in the majority have blocked Democratic Members from offering three different amendments to the bill, all of which were germane and all of which were turned in on time. It seems to me that we operate under two rules in the House of Representatives: one for them and one for us.

Later today, Democrats will offer an amendment lengthening the special election period from 45 to 60 days. Our proposal provides elections officials with a more realistic solution to a daunting task most likely overshadowed by grief and angst. I hope that Members of this body will place the integrity of our democracy above petty politics and vote to adopt the Millender-McDonald amendment.

Additionally, the continuity-in-government commission has recommended a different approach. It has suggested that States create lists of possible appointments to seats vacated due to mass causality to ensure that the House can continue to operate while States move forward with their own special elections process. These temporary appointments would serve until States are able to elect representatives in accordance to their own laws.

This is a fair approach and one which should be considered on equal footing as the underlying legislation. Yet, when our colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), offered this proposal in the 108th Congress, as a footnote, the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) wife is about to deliver their child and he might not get here. We are hoping that he does. But he certainly has been a stalwart leader in the effort to do what is necessary to preserve the integrity of this body. When he introduced this proposal, Republicans sought to embarrass him and the commission's ideas for which he was fighting. They set up a vote in the way that it was impossible for the proposal to be given its due consideration. In my view, it was cutthroat politics, and we should not allow for those kind of actions.

Incomplete as it is, the underlying legislation also fails to consider mass causality where the Speaker is a victim and is unable to trigger special elections. It does not address how the House quorum rules will work in the case of mass House vacancies. Perhaps most importantly, the underlying legislation could potentially leave our country without an effective or legitimate legislative branch for the first 6 weeks following a disaster.

Think about it this way: in the first 6 weeks following September 11, the House, this House, authorized the President to use force against terrorists and appropriated $40 billion to address the emergencies in New York and at the Pentagon. If the underlying legislation is dropped, the legitimacy of actions taken by a shorthanded Congress, most likely during a time of war, would always be in question. For me, this scenario is unacceptable.

Regardless of the House's decisions today, States and voters must ultimately approve this process through a constitutional amendment. It took less than 14 months to approve each of the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 23rd, and 26th amendments respectively. Anyone who suggests that the constitutional amendment process takes years, in my view, is incorrect.

Throughout history, when constitutional amendments have been needed, States and voters have responded. I suspect that they will respond similarly in this case.

All of these concerns underscore the need for this body to consider this legislation in an open and much larger discussion on the continuity of our government during times of mass causality. The effects of our hastiness today may not be felt while any of us are alive, but at some point in the future our successors and our States will be trapped by poor decisions we might make today.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have great respect for the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and I know that he knows that the 17th amendment of the United States Constitution speaks to continuity.

I also know that he knows that the Congress, for purposes of preserving our institutions, allowed for the development of a continuity-of-government commission. On that commission a significant number of outstanding individuals from America, a broad cross-section of them, came up with the notion that it was critical that we have a constitutional amendment to go forward. Let me name some of the people that were on that commission: Lloyd Cutler; Alan Simpson; Philip Chase Bobbitt; Kenneth Duberstein; Tom Foley, former Speaker of the House; Robert Michel, minority leader; Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House; Nicholas B. Katzenbach; Jamie Gorelick; Robert Katzmann; Kweisi Mfume; Lynn Martin; Donna Shalala; and their senior counselors were Norman Orenstein and Thomas Mann.

What they said in the very preamble of their document is the following: We held two public meetings where we heard testimony from experts, and in the course of our investigation, we explored a wide range of options short of a constitutional amendment to ameliorate or solve these problems.

The commissioners, all of those persons that I just identified, shared distaste for frivolous or unnecessary amendments to the Constitution. Unfortunately, because the Constitution dictates the way that vacancies are to be filled in the House and Senate, there is no way to establish a procedure to quickly fill mass vacancies without a constitutional amendment. No less authorities than Robert Michel and Newt Gingrich and Tom Foley and Lloyd Cutler, folks who have studied the Constitution, actively came to that conclusion. I tend to share their view.

And the chairman of the Committee on Rules spoke of James Madison. No greater or eminent scholar that laid the foundation perhaps, other than Jefferson, dealt with all of the issues that they contemplated in their time. But I wonder if Mr. Madison would deem it fair that the House operates with closed rules rather than open rules. We had a vote on whether or not there should be an open rule in this important process for America, and we had an amendment offered by a distinguished Member of this body, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), requiring States to offer same-day voter registration for special elections held in accordance with this bill. Seems reasonable that people would be scattered and other things on their minds in a crisis such as we had experienced on 9/11.

My colleague from New York (Mr. Nadler), who lost more people than all of us combined in the 9/11 tragedy, offered a measure to prohibit deceiving any person as to the time, place, or eligibility requirements of special elections held in accordance with this bill.

And the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, offered an amendment that would require States to equally and fairly distribute election personnel and equipment when it conducts the special elections contemplated in this bill. All three of those civil rights measures went down the tube with the closed rule.

When we open up this institution, we will be able to address matters in a

more meaningful way so that the minority can have their amendments contemplated in good kind.

I end by saying that Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, who was one of the lead authors of the continuity commission's report, stated in front of the Committee on House Administration the following: ``The inability to swiftly constitute the House and Senate would deprive the country of a fully functioning first branch of government at a time of grave national crisis. Unable to achieve a quorum, or relying on a questionable quorum interpretation allowing a small minority, possibly a handful of surviving Members to act for the full Chamber, Congress would be unable to legitimately elect a new Speaker or confirm a new Vice President, both critical links in Presidential succession.

They will be unable to declare war, appropriate funds, pass legislation needed to deal with the attack, confirm Supreme Court and Cabinet appointments, oversee an executive branch possibly run by someone largely unknown to the country, and reassure a stunned Nation that their constitutional democracy is alive and well.''

Constitutional democracy, not statutory democracy as we are offering here today.

Mr. Madison offered the 17th amendment to the United States Constitution that has held well through the years with reference to continuity, and we owe no less responsibility to those Founders to be mindful of our responsibilities in that regard by offering up to the American people an appropriate constitutional amendment to be debated and decided by the people of this great country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

MR. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 27, the administration's job training reauthorization bill, would, among other misguided actions, harm veterans' employment programs and critical vocational rehabilitation services.

Specifically, this bill would permit States to siphon off Federal resources from already underfunded veterans' employment programs that operate under State ``one-stop'' centers. Veterans and disabled job seekers do not deserve this.

Mr. Speaker, in the 107th Congress, we passed in a bipartisan manner the Jobs for Veterans Act, legislation to reorganize, update, and improve these very same veterans' employment and training programs. Now is not the time for this bipartisan effort to be unraveled. While our troops are actively engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and many others suffering from severe injuries and permanent disabilities, now is not the time to reduce the resources for these critical job training programs. Indeed, we need to give these programs the chance to be effective.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that States are facing tremendous fiscal challenges due to the harsh economic times, but clearly taking resources from one chronologically underfunded program is not the answer. The responsible thing for the administration to do, the right thing, would be to adequately support job seekers, especially disabled veterans, as well as to assist the States with infrastructure costs.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not responsible and permits already modest resources intended for the Nation's disabled veterans, all who have served our country, to be further diminished.

I oppose this legislation and urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation. And as a former Marine, I have benefitted from many programs that help veterans with education and training. As a continuation of those efforts, we must not let these people fall through the cracks that we have in our employment laws.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as someone born and raised in the town of Altamonte Springs, Florida, it is a special honor to support the designation of the United States Postal Service located at 321 Montgomery Road in Altamonte Springs, Florida, as the Arthur Stacey Mastrapa Post Office Building.

SGT Arthur Stacey Mastrapa, a former Postal Service employee, was killed in Iraq last June while serving his country as an Army Reservist. Naming the Altamonte Springs Post Office after Sergeant Mastrapa is an honor befitting of a man who dedicated his life to serving his fellow citizens and eventually made the ultimate sacrifice for his nation.

Sergeant Mastrapa was killed in June 2004 after serving nearly 400 days in Iraq as part of a Military Police unit of the Army Reserve. Sergeant Mastrapa joined the Army in 1992 and later joined the Army Reserve in 1998 after leaving active duty. When he was not serving with his reserve unit, he served as a postal worker at the Altamonte Springs Post Office. Sergeant Mastrapa leaves behind his wife Jennifer and two children. Sergeant Mastrapa was a model American.

Mr. Speaker, each of the 24 other members of the Florida Congressional delegation supports this legislation because it not only honors Sergeant Mastrapa's life, but it also thanks his family for their sacrifice and creates a permanent memorial that his coworkers at the post office can remember him by.