Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for working with me to make this amendment in order; and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services; and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member, my very good friend, for the work that they have done on this entire bill.

Mr. Chairman, we can all agree wholeheartedly that supporting our soldiers and providing them what they need to get the job done is our highest priority. However, there are some other important matters that must also be addressed regarding the National Defense Authorization Act, issues that the American people want to hear about.

From the President on down to many of us, we have the view that Iraq could fund its own reconstruction. Prior to the war, the Secretary of Defense and his deputy testified to Congress that a war in Iraq and subsequent reconstruction costs could be financed by oil profits in Iraq.

This was reconfirmed on March 27 when Deputy Secretary of Defense Mr. Wolfowitz suggested that Iraqi oil revenues could pay for the cost of reconstituting Iraq. To date, Congress has already appropriated $148 billion to fund the war and reconstruction efforts, and the President is requesting an additional $25 billion for fiscal year 2005.

Moreover, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz has suggested that between 50 and $60 billion is actually needed, and I, for one, agree with that; but this funding has yet to be supplemented by Iraqi oil revenue.

My amendment expresses the sense of Congress that no funds available for Iraqi reconstruction purposes may be used unless the President certifies to Congress that the United States Government has entered into an agreement with Iraq that it will expend a significant portion of its revenues generated from oil production on its own reconstruction.

This amendment is not intended to use Iraqi oil money to finance the broader U.S. military campaign. Instead, it states that the United States ought to share the cost of Iraqi reconstruction with the free government of Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

The United States has a responsibility to finish what we are involved in in Iraq. Iraq is an integral and critical ingredient in our recipe for success in the entire region. Nevertheless, the American people should not be expected to bear the full burden of these costs. American tax dollars are building roads in Mosul, but not in my hometown of Miramar.

We are building schools in Baghdad, but not in Boston; and we are funding hospitals in Basra, but not Baltimore. I find this troubling, especially in light of Iraq's vast natural resources and some of the comments that have been made regarding the funding reconstruction efforts with Iraqi oil revenue.

The fact is that if that is unhealthy for Iraq, it should not be healthy for the United States. After all, we are not the ones sitting on a $7 trillion oil reserve. At the very least, Iraqis should share this economic burden. To finance this huge effort, we need partners; and Iraq should be our first and foremost partner in the rebuilding of their country. We cannot afford these efforts any other way, and I ask for my colleagues' support for my amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, just as a very brief response to my colleague from Texas, I find it strange that he would use the term that the regulatory measures that are set in place to protect American workers puts us at some competitive disadvantage; and I would just wonder, are we at a competitive disadvantage with countries that have children as young as 9 and 10, 11 years old working? Are we at a competitive disadvantage with countries that have no concern for their workers who die in substantial numbers in plants and mines? That is what separates us from the rest of the world. We are better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and all five of the underlying pieces of legislation that it encompasses. For those who did not hear me the first time, I said five pieces of legislation under one rule.

This is sort of the blue light special or the supersized rule, Mr. Speaker, five for the price of one. When we look at the number of amendments made in order under this rule, they total five as well and only one is from a Democrat. Republicans have taken their sheer wrong- headedness to a whole new level with this rule. My outrage and the outrage of all in the minority is as much about process as it is about policy. Pure partisan politics never produces sound public policy, and election year politics and messaging have no place in the people's House. Yet that is all the majority seems interested in.

The political score Republicans are seeking to settle with their barrage of anti-working class legislation is not going to be fulfilled by stifling debate and blocking Democrats out of the process. Republicans are calling this the ``OSHA Fairness Package.'' Fair for whom? The only victims I see here are not only the Democratic Party; it is the American worker that it is unfair to.

For the last 3 weeks, Republicans have come to the floor to pass what they call middle-class tax relief. They said they were the party of the middle class and they stand for working-class values. They said they care about the well-being of America's working families. How disingenuous they are, Mr. Speaker.

Four of the five underlying pieces of legislation represent a buffet of roll-backs in our laws governing working conditions. To quote the United Auto Workers on just one of the four bills: ``This legislation would give unprecedented and unwarranted authority to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Council to take away workers workplace health and safety.''

Mr. Speaker, do we have an overwhelming epidemic in this country of unfair workplace lawsuits that I do not know about? The judicial process for violations in workplace health and safety standards has been in place in this country of ours for nearly 30 years. It is fair and most importantly it protects the rights of workers. Yet two of the four underlying bills affecting OSHA standards are coming as a direct result of recent court rulings that Republicans and their corporate friends do not agree with. The other two are aimed at stacking the OSHA commission with anti-worker commissioners and creating a system where only those who can afford legal representation will be permitted to file a complaint with the workplace safety and health board. A direct attack on American juris prudence is one of the measures that would allow that, if OSHA brings a complaint, OSHA must pay if it loses. I think that is also the American taxpayer.

Apparently, Republicans' new policy is when the courts rule against you, legislate against the courts. When one of the senior Democrats of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), came before this body, and he has served here for 30 years and is known throughout the country as a champion of working-class Americans, he came to the Committee on Rules yesterday on behalf of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, and Republicans denied him the opportunity to offer a substitute to legislate what came out of his committee.

The majority protects their chairman's amendment, but they fail to extend the same courtesy and respect to the ranking member. Had the majority made the Miller substitute in order or the Kildee substitute in order, the House could have done something today that would have actually benefited working-class Americans. We could have had a real debate about the minimum wage, and we could have taken a vote and found out where Members really stand on the issue on whether workers in this country ought to get incrementally over a period of time $7 an hour instead of the current $5.15 cents an hour.

It is kind of hard to make ends meet with gasoline being $2 a gallon and a person is being paid $5.15, while we here in the House have raised our wages six times since people that work at the minimum wage have had an increase. Perhaps the majority is blocking what it knows it cannot defeat; or better yet, perhaps the majority is just protecting its Members from taking a vote that will show their true colors. Shame on them and shame on this body if it allows this assault on American workers to continue.

Some may suggest that it is just class warfare. Mr. Speaker, I simply point out that Democrats do not rule in this town, and we certainly did not start the fight. But if the majority thinks that we are going to sit idly by and allow this barrage of attacks on America's working class, then they have another thought coming to them. We are just not quite ready to give up on our country yet and certainly not ready to give up on our workers and the least among us who are working-class Americans, many of whom, 33 million or 44 million uninsured people in this country, are working Americans and here we are taking measures that are likely to impact all of them.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule. And this is the 25th of our rules with only one being open, and I ask my colleagues to reject the underlying piece of legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, I will just respond to the chairman that if this is such a great worker-protection measure, why is it that no group that is a proponent of worker protection favors this measure? I just find that passing strange. I yield to the chairman to answer me if there is any worker group that I do not know about.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman did not answer my question. Is there a group of proponents of workers' rights that support these measures? Is the answer yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I think I know the answer. The answer is ``no,'' and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), who does know something about this measure as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers that have come to the floor, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have great respect and admiration for my friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, and I speak often about working families. I am mindful that many of those working families are members of labor organizations, and I am supportive of them.

The statistic the gentleman quoted was somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 to 8 percent. But that leaves us a whole lot of other people who are working at the minimum wage who are also working families who may be injured, who may be killed in these workplaces. And I rather suspect, as one who has the third largest number of small businesses among the 435 of us in the House of Representatives, that I am certainly interested in those businesses flourishing and continuing to provide for the workers.

I can assure my colleague that one thing we could be doing here that would help everybody would be to incentivize those small businesses with the necessary funds for tax protection that would allow them to be able to provide insurance for their workers, and I cite several of them that I visited recently that say that is particularly important. It is also particularly important to them that the regulatory measures be reduced, and there is some currency in our being able to do that. But at the expense of people who are likely to be injured, and at the expense of people who are likely to be killed on their jobs, I simply do not believe that any business wishes to be in a position of not having the necessary regulation to protect their workers.

We do not do a very good job here in Congress, and I suggest we might want to look at the atmosphere that some of these people work in and the kinds of injuries they receive right here on Capitol Hill; the kind of long hours the people that transcribe our words here on the House floor work; the people that protect us in law enforcement and the helter-skelter schedules they are confronted with. There are a lot of workers that do not have fair protection. And for us to cut back on opportunities to protect them, in my view, is unwarranted, unsound, bad policy, and bad politics.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I did not say who; I said which of the worker proponent organizations supported the bill. And I thank the gentleman for providing me this list of outstanding organizations that support this measure. But name me the work proponent organizations that support this measure, and I do not think any are on the gentleman's list.

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 thank my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. At seven in the morning today, he and I, and the other members of the Committee on Rules, met to discuss this resolution.

Once again, the Republican majority has determined to use the Committee on Rules to frustrate the democratic procedures.

Once again. the Republican Party has stifled debate and offered a closed rule.

As America commits itself to promoting Democracy in Iraq, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, for partisan purposes, refused to allow an open debate on this most important issue.

It is as if the Republican majority starts and ends every Congressional session, which is broadcast live by C-SPAN, by saying, ``Please do not try this at home.'' Today, again, they set exactly the wrong example of how to proceed democratically.

I condemn these horrible acts, and would have supported a resolution that properly and sincerely addressed the horrors that took place in Iraq. I believe that such a resolution could have come to the House floor under unanimous consent, and would have enjoyed full bipartisan support.

Now, it is important for us to recognize that the American military has no peers. It is also important for us to recognize that the absolute, overwhelming, great majority of the men and women in the military are not the kind of people that are now being investigated, and are not the kind of people that would commit these abuses.

I, for once, will not allow the offensive acts of a few to stain the service of more than 300,000 American men and women who have risked their lives for freedom. Our military has worked too hard and accomplished too much to be stained by the actions of a few.

That said, in a society committed to civil and human rights like ours, there is no place for the sorts of atrocities that occurred in Iraq. No American would allow for this kind of conduct. Everyone feels awful that this occurred and deplores the abuses of persons in America's custody in Iraq.

However, this resolution does not say what I think it should say. It condemns the abuse, but presents unacceptable omissions and inexcusable political provisions. Therefore, the resolution needs to be amended.

First, I would have supported a resolution that condemned the abuses and sought accountability because I believe this to be a time for remorse and self-criticism.

We are a Nation used to pointing the finger elsewhere; now, the fingers of the international public are pointing--rightfully so--back at us. Therefore, we must harshly and steadfastly deal with these atrocities and hold responsible all those that have contributed to the abuses. I trust that we can do this together with our friends and allies, taking advantage of such international organizations as the United Nations and the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe that have experience and knowledge on how to fight and prevent human rights violations worldwide.

But, this resolution instead tries to change the subject and avoid the problems by bragging about the removal of Saddam Hussein. This is not a time to spin the bad news or play politics. And, this resolution is not the proper place to defend the mistaken decision of going to war in Iraq. I refuse to belatedly vote for the war in Iraq under the guise of a dishonest and untruthful title.

Second, I would have supported a resolution that made accountable all those whom, regardless of rank or party loyalty, contributed to a culture that condones human rights abuses. Ultimately, what happened in Iraq and its aftermath has been a failure of leadership of the Commander in Chief, and a failure of leadership of the Department of Defense from Secretary Rumsfeld, and the resolution should have pointed this out.

More courageous leaders would have recognized their responsibility, faced up to the situation, and said, ``the buck stops here.'' But, instead, those in the Bush Administration failed to do their jobs and give straight answers. And, the resolution of the Republican Congressional majority has been drafted to absolve the leadership of any blame.

We must take a good and hard look at the Bush Administration. I trust that justice and accountability will come for those who perpetrated abuse of Iraqi detainees, and those in the chain of command who failed to act upon learning of these appalling acts.

Third, I would have supported a resolution that loudly and strongly decried the fact that for too long the information regarding the abuses in Iraqi prisons was in the hands of military higher-ups who did not deem the oversight responsibilities of Congress important enough for them to bring the matter forward. Congress was not notified of the problems at Abu Ghraib prison, even though the Department of Defense had a report outlining the conditions there at least 3 months ago.

To conclude, it is unfortunate that this matter does not come to the floor under unanimous consent. It does have, as I pointed out this morning, a few flaws that could easily have been corrected had the majority determined that it was proper to do so.

I take this opportunity to apologize not only to the detainees but also to all others who likely feel that America has lost its moral authority.

Had this resolution been true to its title, ``Deploring the Abuse of Persons in United States Custody in Iraq,'' I would vote in favor of it. However, for the above-mentioned reasons, I cannot support the legislation in question. I will vote nay as a patriot, and a human rights defender.

I oppose this resolution in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 409, recognizing with humble gratitude the more than sixteen million veterans who served in the U.S. Armed Forces during World War II, and all the Americans of that generation who supported the war effort at home. This resolution further celebrates the completion of the National World War II Memorial on the National Mall.

After years of devotion by numerous veterans, politicians, architects, actors, corporations, schools, and other individuals, the dedication of the National World War II Memorial serves as an honorable way to recognize the veterans and citizens who sacrificed so much for the cause of human freedom.

This extraordinary memorial at the heart of our Nation's Capital is a fitting reminder to us all that some of the most valorous and courageous moments in our history occurred when our Nation was unified in defense of liberty and democracy against the forces of fascism and barbarity.

I shudder to reflect on where our world might be without the exceptional courage and dignity displayed by the members of the U.S. Armed Forces in World War II. These veterans took it upon themselves to place their bodies in harm's way to defend against an evil that threatened not just our Nation, but all the world's nations. The men who stormed the beaches of Normandy, who flew hair-raising missions over Berlin, who fought beneath the surface of the ocean, and who weathered the Battle of the Bulge displayed the kind of selflessness that should be an inspiration to all who stand up against tyranny and aggression.

Mr. Speaker, World War II was won not just by soldiers alone but also by the nation that supported them. In the theater of war, men and women served as doctors, nurses, journalists, photographers, suppliers, drivers, and many other roles in direct support of the combat troops. Here at home, millions of women took to the factories to produce the material and machinery so vital to winning: planes, jeeps, ships, guns, radios, and thousands of other products used everyday by the troops in the field.

The new National World War II Memorial is an important and invaluable dedication to the men and women of the United States who stood up to the forces of tyranny and oppression. Their courage, dignity, valor, and sacrifice will inspire future generations to reflect on the meaning of our Nation and on the meaning of the values we hold so dear.

I urge my colleagues to give their full support to the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Autism Society of America, autism is the fastest growing developmental disability in the country. Growing at a rate of 10-17 percent every year, it is estimated that autism could affect a staggering four million Americans in the coming decade.

Despite these alarming figures, autism is an issue that is simply not getting enough attention. For whatever reason, society appears to be all too quick to overlook the matter. It is the duty of this House to ensure not only that autism research is intensified, but also that autism awareness is increased. H. Res. 605 addresses both of these key endeavors.

The cost of autism-related services such as evaluations, home programs, and therapies is expensive. Many families across the nation are having to bare the financial burden of these services with limited assistance. According to the Autism Society of America, the cost of lifelong care can be reduced by two thirds with early diagnosis and intervention. Therefore, in the long run, increased spending on early detection would, in fact, ease the financial burden of treating individuals with autism.

Autism is a so-called ``spectrum disorder.'' Thus, it effects individuals to varying degrees of severity. Accordingly, early detection of autism would enable individuals with autism to receive the necessary attention and treatment to meet their respective needs. This, in turn, increases his or her chances of living with minimal disability related difficulties. Later in life, worker-training programs provide an additional and invaluable opportunity for individuals to get the necessary training to help them participate effectively in the workforce.

In conclusion, I reiterate my support for H. Res. 605, and urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill. We must all work together to curb the increase in autism and to raise awareness about the nature of the disability.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me this time. This morning he and I and the other members of the Committee on Rules who are here met at 7 o'clock a.m. to discuss this resolution.

Now, the simple fact of the matter is, it is important for us to recognize that the American military has no peers. It is also important for us to recognize that most of the men and women, the great majority of the men and women in the military are not the kind of people that are now being investigated and that we see so widespread, and are not the kind of people that would abuse people in the circumstances that the detainees found themselves.

It is unfortunate that this matter does not come to the floor under unanimous consent. It does have, as I pointed out this morning, one or two flaws that could easily have been corrected had the majority determined that it was proper to do so.

One of those flaws allows itself to come forward in one paragraph which reads, ``Whereas the Congress was not fully informed of the existence,'' and that is true, ``or the seriousness.'' But it does not say what I think it should say, and that is that we decried the fact that for too long, this was in the hands of military higher-ups who did not deem the oversight responsibilities of Congress important enough for them to bring the matter forward.

Additionally, this is a resolution about horrors that took place inside a prison. This is not a proper place, in my judgment, for us to be bragging about anything concerning the conditions being better after the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Additionally, it is that these abuses, as offensive as they are, need to be put in perspective with regard to the ongoing military effort.

I would urge everybody to take a deep breath and to realize that no American, Republican or Democrat, would allow for this kind of conduct, and no one from the President on down does not feel sorry that this occurred, and all of us should be in a position to do as the general who now is in charge of this prison did, and that is, apologize not only to the detainees that this occurred to, but to the others who likely feel that America has lost its moral authority.

America will never lose its moral authority, because in this body and in the White House and in the Secretary of Defense's office, and in the Secretary of the Army's office, justice will come to those who took advantage of others in circumstances that were not proper.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for the time, and I rise today in opposition to the underlying bill and the closed rule providing for its consideration.

Once again, my friends on the Republican side have come to this floor in a restrictive manner stifling debate before it is even allowed to begin. The majority preaches fairness and inclusiveness while practicing and maintaining an agenda that divides and obstructs.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) previously suggested it is a fair rule because it allows for a Democratic substitute. With all due respect to the gentleman, this rule is anything but fair, and it is far from open. The rule does make in order an amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means. The Rangel substitute is far more encompassing than the Republican proposal, easier to understand, and most importantly, it pays for itself.

Despite making this amendment in order, the rule blocks the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) from offering an amendment dealing with the deductibility of State income taxes or State sales taxes. Yesterday evening, the Baird measure came to the Committee on Rules. The gentleman from Washington asked that his amendment be made in order under the rule. In typical fashion, Republicans are blocking what they may not be able to defeat. Just like Shakespeare wrote, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet; a closed rule will always stink, and not even dozens of roses could blanket this stench.

The so-called Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act that the House will consider later today is just another example of the majority's recklessly irresponsible tax agenda, not to mention creative naming practices. Even at first glance, this bill fails America's middle class. Folks, it raises taxes on the middle class. I do not know about the rest of my colleagues, but I have a pretty tough time making the argument in the district that I am proud to represent that a household income between $100,000 and $200,000 is middle class because in the district I represent, the average household income is barely $31,000.

In that district that I am proud to represent, $100,000 in household income is upper class by any definition; yet this is the income level that the majority continues to use as an example when making the case to eliminate the AMT.

The majority maintains that extending AMT exemptions help the middle class. I say it neglects America's real middle class. It raises their taxes. If Congress is serious about helping middle-class families, then it ought to use the $18 billion we are spending on the AMT extension this year alone and invest in the public schools which middle-class children attend. Congress should use the $18 billion and invest in health insurance for the 8.1 million uninsured middle-class Americans. Furthermore, 1-year fixes do not solve our problems. Over a 10-year period, this really will cost us $559 billion. It would be easier to eliminate the entire income tax. It would cost us less than what the Republicans are proposing under the AMT provisions that they offer.

Or if we really want to make a statement about our priorities, Congress should dedicate this $18 billion to the transportation reauthorization bill, a bill that a colleague of ours noted last week is currently stuck in a Republican legislative traffic jam. If we take this $18 billion and add it to the nearly $96 billion that we spent last week in eliminating the marriage tax, we have got ourselves more than 110 billion in

new dollars to invest in America's transportation and infrastructure. At the same time, we would be creating some 4.6 million new jobs. Congress could have the $375 billion transportation bill that America needs without any increase in the gas tax and avoiding a Presidential veto. Instead, the majority chooses to cut taxes at the expense of our national priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know any tax cuts that can teach high school algebra. I certainly cannot recall ever meeting a tax cut that could build a road. But I do know the Bush administration tax cuts, that 3 years of those have stalemated this body to the point that we are unable to adequately address long-term unemployment, an increasing number of uninsured people, escalating costs for health care, the uncertainty of an aging Social Security program, and an inadequate transportation system in this great country of ours. Three years of the Bush administration tax cuts have resulted in the largest deficit in the history of America, the greatest decline in household income in nearly 40 years, and an economy that is showing no immediate signs of recovery to help the more than 8 million unemployed Americans. Most important, tax cuts affect our ability to provide for America's military.

Let me send a message to President Bush and his minions. We cannot have guns and butter and ice cream as they propose. Our country has serious needs. Mr. Speaker, the underlying resolution neglects all of them. For that reason and that reason alone, Members should stand up against the interests of a few at the expense of all. I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and reject the underlying resolution.

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

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

Most respectfully, my friend from Georgia has misspoken. If he reads my comment, he will understand that I said the Baird measure was proposed before the Committee on Rules last night. I was there like the gentleman from Georgia was. I do know, as a matter of fact, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) presented the measure, and it was not accepted by us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that all of my Republican colleagues who have such great interest in this AMT are just showing up in great numbers to speak on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would urge our colleagues who are back in their offices and committees to come on down here and explain to the middle class in America why this AMT is not a tax increase on them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

The name of the bill, Mr. Speaker, does not make it any more correct. The problem still exists.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

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

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

Twenty-six minutes for those people who believe in this measure to come down here and prove to America that their provision on the AMT is not a tax increase on middle class America, yet they are not using that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my good friend and good student of this process.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by continuing the exemption for another year, 1 year, Republicans are incrementally trying to postpone the day of reckoning with the AMT. At some point a decision will have to be made to, number one, repeal some of President Bush's tax cuts or, number two, index the AMT for inflation at a cost of roughly $370 billion or, number three, eliminate the AMT altogether at a cost of $600 billion without the Bush tax cuts, or $900 billion if President Bush's tax cuts remain beyond 2010.

What I just said is a part of inside baseball that at best we could feed to the goats the language that we employ here. The mythical Ms. Johnson and Jane and Joe Lunch Bucket understand only one thing and one thing only, that we need to have a debate on how it affects them. No one comes into my office talking about an AMT. But people come into my office talking about health care. People come into the office of our all of us talking about education. People come to our offices to talk about supporting the military in an adequate fashion. And countless, thousands, of Americans come to us talking about either being uninsured or needing to have incentives for small businesses. And yet we find ourselves unable to have a discussion in this House of Representatives that is meaningful as far as economics are concerned. What we get are campaign gimmicks and fancy names of things that do not become the law.

This measures has passed the House of Representatives before. If the American people wanted it to be law, they would be in our offices saying they want this to be the law. We cannot get ten people in most of our communities to write a decent paragraph on what the alternative minimum tax really is. I dare say we could not get a whole lot of Members of the House to do likewise.

With that in mind, it is a confusing set of circumstances that is a 1-year fix. If you think so much of it, why did you stay in your offices and not come down here and explain to the American public why the middle class will not experience a tax increase over the haul of 10 years? What you do is you reduce the income taxes, then you eliminate the AMT on one hand and you take from the right hand and give to the left hand.

To correct my friend from Georgia, who will have the last word on this subject, correctly so, because he and his Members are in the majority, let me give him a summary of the motion that he brought to the House of Representatives. It says ``Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4227, Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004, Mr. Linder, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following.''

I shall not read the entire report, but since he took it upon himself to say that the Baird measure was not before us, I shall only refer to the language of the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) last night when the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and I were in the Committee on Rules.

``Summary of motion: To make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for the amendment offered by Representative Baird.'' Do not challenge me when I say that that was what was brought to us. That measure was defeated six to five by the majority, and I say today we have a chance to remedy that problem if Members, particularly those from Florida, were to see my Republican colleagues from Florida come down here and say that this is not a sound measure when all we have is a sales tax and right up the street somebody else with an income tax can deduct it from their Federal tax offering and we are unable to do this so. Fair is fair. This measure is not fair.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on the Baird sales tax equity amendment that was offered in the Committee on Rules last night but not allowed by the Republican leadership. I think Members deserve an opportunity to vote on this important amendment. I want to point out that this is not a partisan amendment. It has support from both sides of the aisle as was demonstrated in the Committee on Rules vote yesterday.

The Baird amendment would allow taxpayers who itemize their deductions the option to deduct their State income tax or sales taxes paid in a given year. The option for deduction of sales taxes was available to taxpayers until 1986 when it was eliminated. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) said that the gentleman from Missouri's (Mr. Gephardt) name was on that. I remind him that it was signed by President Ronald Reagan. However, taxpayers in those States with a State income tax still retain the ability to deduct those taxes. The loss of the State sales tax option was particularly tough for taxpayers in States with no income tax like my own State of Florida.

As a result, people in my State and others similarly situated pay more taxes than people with identical taxable incomes in States that have a State income tax. It is very important that we equalize the tax relief for citizens in those States without the State income taxes.

Let me emphasize that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of H.R. 4227, the Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief bill. But it will allow the House to vote on reinstating the sales tax deduction option and correct the current tax inequity. But a ``yes'' vote will block Members from an up or down vote on this important tax relief.

Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

In the resolution strike ``and (3)'' and insert the

following:

``(3) the amendment printed in Sec. 2 of this resolution if

offered by Representative Baird of Washington or a designee,

which shall be in order without intervention of any point of

order, shall be considered as read, and shall separately

debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by

the proponent and an opponent; and (4)''

Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in (3) follows:

At the end of the bill insert the following new section:

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, while attending meetings of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly and fulfilling my official duties as a Vice President of the Parliamentary Assembly, I missed votes on April 20 through April 22. Additionally, while representing the U.S. Helsinki Commission at the OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism; I missed votes on April 27 and 28. Had I been present, I would have voted the following way:

Rollcall 118: ``aye''; rollcall 119: ``aye''; rollcall 120: ``aye''; rollcall 121: ``aye''; rollcall 122: ``aye''; rollcall 123: ``aye''; rollcall 124: ``aye''; rollcall 125: ``aye''; rollcall 126: ``no''; rollcall 127: ``no''; rollcall 128: ``aye''; rollcall 129: ``aye''; rollcall 130: ``no''; rollcall 131: ``aye''; rollcall 132: ``aye''; rollcall 133: ``aye''; rollcall 134: ``aye''; rollcall 135: ``aye''; rollcall 136: ``aye''; rollcall 137: ``aye''; rollcall 138: ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to welcome the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This is a truly historic occasion which transforms the strategic map of Europe, and strengthens the Atlantic Alliance.

In my first term in Congress, I cosponsored H. R. 4210, the NATO Participation Act of 1994. I believed then, as I continue to believe now, that NATO should be inclusive to all European nations that share our belief in democracy and the rule of law. Therefore, I am delighted to welcome the new member states to NATO.

NATO was established in 1949 for the purpose of countering the threat of Communist expansion. While that threat is now securely in the history books, the world has been forced to face new, and different dangers. Throughout the myriad of changes in international relations since NATO was first founded, the salience of a strong alliance among friendly nations remains.

As is necessary with all longstanding organizations, NATO is changing with the times. It remains the world's most powerful regional defense alliance precisely because of its ability to adapt to new conditions. NATO continues to safeguard its member states through political and military means. However, over the past 15 years, the Organization has come to play a growing role in peacekeeping and crisis management.

Originally, NATO consisted of 12 member countries. Over the years the Organization has expanded twice. Once in 1952, to include Greece and Turkey, and a second time in 1955 to include West Germany. The simultaneous accession of seven states is the largest expansion in the history of the Organization. I, for one, hope that it will not take another 50 years before we see another round of NATO expansion.

The accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to NATO cements the increasingly strong relationship between the United States and those countries. The strengthening of the Atlantic Alliance is of benefit to all parties. Moreover, Congress looks forward to the opportunity to work closely together with the new countries for shared goals.

As the Vice-President of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, I have followed closely the progress of the new NATO member states. In the past, I have had the pleasure of visiting Romania and Slovakia. Later this month, I plan to visit the Baltic region and learn more about our newest alliance partners.

In conclusion, let me again state my wholehearted support for H. Res. 558, welcoming the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I reiterate my hope that we will soon have occasion to celebrate the accession of more states into the Atlantic Alliance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Senate bill 2057, a bill to reimburse members of the Armed Forces for certain travel expenses incurred while on leave before the Central Command Rest and Recuperation Leave Program was expanded to include domestic travel.

This bill, which recently passed the Senate, directs the Secretary of Defense to reimburse members of the Armed Forces for transportation expenses for up to one domestic round trip that was taken between September 25 and December 18, 2003.

Mr. Speaker, the past few years have been a difficult and strenuous time for the brave and dedicated men and women of our Armed Forces. Our soldiers are tasked in missions across the globe, from Iraq and Afghanistan to South Korea and the Philippines. Many of these missions involve combat or other extreme hardships.

In addition to being kept apart for months at a time, military families have to cope with rising health care costs and uncertainties about the future. Deployment orders for reservists and the National Guard are increasing, and stop-loss measures have been put in place for enlisted personnel who thought they were on the verge of going home. Tens of thousands of military families lack adequate housing and affordable medical care, and Democratic efforts to increase family separation and danger pay have been defeated by Republicans in this body.

Each deployment period, soldiers only receive a brief period of leave to reunite with their families and enjoy respite from the hazards of serving abroad. That soldiers, in some instances, should have had to pay for their own transportation costs while on leave is most unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, it is reasonable for Congress to demonstrate its gratitude to the men and women of the Armed Forces by ensuring that they do not have to pay out of pocket for travel expenses incurred while transitioning from the difficulties of deployment to the welcoming arms of their families at home.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Military and Civilian Employees Pay Parity Resolution and the rule providing for its consideration. This underlying resolution is imperative for it expresses the sense of Congress that the government should provide fair compensation for Federal employees in order to encourage citizens to pursue a life of public service.

Federal employees consistently demonstrate the best that our government has to offer, and their contributions directly improve the lives of all Americans.

When we speak of Federal employees, we speak not only of the brave men and women of the Armed Forces but also of the men and women of literally hundreds of agencies dealing with thousands of issues. With nearly 1 million employees, the Federal Government is the largest employer in the United States. Thirty-two thousand Federal employees live in and/or around my south Florida district alone.

Employees of the Central Intelligence Agency work in oftentimes arduous conditions to safeguard our country from those who mean to do us harm.

Federal Emergency Management Agency employees provide disaster relief assistance, supplying shelter, food and funds to victims of natural disasters.

Customs agents and Transportation Security Administration officials protect our borders and our skies, and firefighters and other Federal law enforcement personnel across the Nation are our first responders to a range of hazards that can affect entire cities or single homes.

These are just a few of those Federal employees, including the fine people that do the work here transcribing our words, the clerks that work with us, the Capitol Police, the security guards, all are Federal employees; and, in my judgment, many of them do not receive fair compensation for their hard work.

Mr. Speaker, much of the world comes to know the face of America from the dedicated Federal employees living in this country and working abroad.

All of these hard-working employees deserve the unequivocal support of this body. Even more, they deserve just and fair compensation that competes with the private sector and rises to meet the living standards enjoyed by many Americans.

Increases in the pay of military and Federal civilian employees have not kept pace with the overall pay levels of private sector employees. There currently exists a gap of 32 percent between compensation levels of Federal civilian employees and those of private sector workers and an estimated 5.7 percent gap between compensation levels of members of the uniformed services and those of private sector workers. This glaring discrepancy greatly hampers the ability to recruit and retain quality employees.

To run efficiently and effectively, and to provide necessary services to

the American people, the Federal Government needs to attract skilled, educated, and motivated people. We must provide Federal employees with an appropriate level of salary and benefits to encourage people to pursue a career of Federal service, whether civilian or military. Potential Federal employees must be made to understand that choosing a career of public service is not akin to taking a vow of poverty. The contributions one can make within the Federal service are lasting, desirable, and beneficial to the entire country.

I stand with my Democratic colleagues today as we point out that instead of debating a resolution expressing the sense of Congress, we should be debating a bill that actually establishes just compensation as public policy. It is shameful that while the administration and this body insist on providing a $1 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest among us, the Republican-passed budget leaves Federal employees to cope with rising health care and education costs without adequate compensation for their jobs.

This body's failure to ensure just compensation is yet another sad example of enriching the wealthy at the expense of middle-class America. I look forward to a day when this Congress will act to provide an equitable living standard for the middle class instead of just simply raising the idea.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by again expressing my support for this legislation and encouraging my colleagues to support it. As the old saying goes, though, talk is cheap. It is now time for this body to put its money where our mouths are and include real pay parity in the budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I do have additional comments that are unrelated to the parity issue. Because I do serve with my colleague on the Committee on Rules, I also feel the need to make a comment on recent issues which have taken place in the Committee on Rules.

We are experiencing a greater and greater breakdown of comity within the Committee on Rules that has me very troubled. The minority no longer receives timely notice of when the majority intends to make announcements. We no longer receive materials or even a notice that materials are available on a timely basis.

We did not, for example, receive notice from the majority that the chairman of the Committee on Rules was going to make a unanimous consent agreement last night on transportation. Although we knew from our leadership that this was going to take place, it is only a common courtesy between the majority and the minority of a committee that the minority be notified before the chairman makes announcements on the floor. Similarly, the manager's amendment for the transportation bill was apparently made available to the majority last night, but Democrats received it this morning.

I raise these issues here, Mr. Speaker, not in derogation of the issue before us, but because this is just the tip of the iceberg. No one in the minority disputes that the majority of the committee, in conjunction with the Republican leadership, controls what happens here on the House floor. But there are rules for each committee, rules which the majority is supposed to follow. And the frequency with which the majority on the Committee on Rules has taken to violating those rules and practices is increasing; and it needs to stop, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce a bill to allow a tax deduction for expenses paid in connection with the donation of an organ.

Mr. Speaker, each year approximately 6,500 people die waiting to receive an organ transplant. However, 25,000 lives are saved due to the generosity of organ donors. While we have made significant strides to promote and encourage organ donation, we still fall short of our goal.

In response to this need, the legislation I now introduce will allow organ donors a tax deduction for up to $15,000 per donation. Specifically, this bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow individuals to deduct qualified organ expenses such as travel and lost wages for donating all or part of a liver, lung, pancreas, kidney, intestine, or bone marrow for human organ transplantation.

Unlike previous bills that have been introduced in the House, this bill does not require donors to wait on what is often a long and tedious grant process to approve reimbursement. The donors will automatically be able to deduct up to $15,000 in related expenses.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this bill because I believe organ donors should not have to pay any price or expense for an act of kindness. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule and the underlying resolution. Yesterday afternoon, 35 amendments were offered during the Rules Committee hearing. Democrats offered amendments to increase funding for the No Child Left Behind Act, veterans' healthcare, job training programs, environmental cleanups, military survivor benefits, port security, first responders, affordable housing, and many other important domestic priorities.

However, of the 35 amendments offered, only 4 are made in order by this rule. As the current chairman of the Rules Committee once said, ``If a rule isn't open, then it's closed.'' By the definition of the gentleman from California, this rule is closed, and I oppose it.

As my colleagues have already noted, we live in a trying time when fiscal constraints are overwhelming. The ongoing costs associated with an unprovoked war in Iraq have only added to the Bush recession, which the National Bureau for Economic Research has noted first began in March 2001. Our problems were exacerbated when the Bush tax cuts were signed into law. These tax cuts squandered raging surplus and have driven America's economy into the ground.

The Republican budget proposal is a reckless disregard of the obvious. It further increases our deficit and abandons the social contract this body has signed with the American people.

The Republican budget neglects America's children, seniors, and veterans. It underfunds our domestic priorities by billions, including veterans benefits, our education system, and perhaps most importantly during this dangerous time in history, homeland security.

To pay for their tax cuts, Republicans lay the groundwork for $2.2 billion in cuts to the Medicaid program. With these cuts, states will

be forced to cover shortfalls in Federal commitments. At the same time, millions of America's poorest will find themselves homeless and uninsured with nobody to turn to.

Making a bad budget worse, the Republican proposal has the audacity to suggest that spending in Iraq will not be necessary beyond the upcoming fiscal year. Nothing could be further from the truth. This budget is as dishonest as the President's claims which got us into Iraq in the first place.

Even though I will oppose their budget, at the least the Republic Study Committee is honest about what it's doing.

Consideration of the budget resolution provides both parties with the opportunity to outline their priorities. Democrats will come to the floor today and offer our priorities to the American people. Our proposal is fiscally and socially responsible, while maintaining all of our international and domestic commitments.

Over the next 5 years, the Democratic budget provides nearly $10 billion more than Republicans for appropriated education programs, $6.6 billion more for veterans' programs, and $5 billion more for homeland security.

We provide a realistic short- and long-term outlook for America's budget, and we ensure that domestic spending remains consistent with the costs of inflation. Democrats do all of this at the same time we balance the budget and cut the deficit.

Additionally, Members of the Congressional Black Caucus will offer our own budget. Our proposal is equally responsible and realistic. With increases in funding for America's schools, veterans, healthcare, and job training programs, the CBC budget reflects the conscious of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is far less about politics than it is about priorities. After 6 hours of debate on the majority's budget proposal, it is clearer than ever: Republican priorities are not American priorities.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying resolution, and vote ``yes'' on all Democratic substitutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Helping the People of Haiti Act, a bill to renew United States financial assistance to Haiti and to urge the international community to support Haiti's economic recovery.

As the international community intervenes to restore peace in Haiti, I encourage all of my colleagues to concern yourselves with the suffering of its people. The health and welfare of millions of Haitians and the stability of a region close to our shores will only get worse if we do not seize the opportunity to act responsibly now.

My bill, the Helping the People of Haiti Act, requires the Secretary of the Treasury to direct the U.S. Executive Director at the Inter- American Development Bank to release the loans already approved for Haiti. These funds, amounting to $146 million, provide for health, education, water, sanitation, and transportation developments that are critical to stabilizing Haiti and improving the plight of its people. This bill also requires the Secretary of State to encourage foreign governments to strengthen their financial support and help with Haiti's economic development.

For too long, the United States and the international community did not intervene to

alleviate the situation in Haiti, conditioning financial assistance on the strengthening of democratic institutions, free and fair elections, and transparent and accountable government. But it is reasonable to assume that these requirements for financial aid will now be met, given the international community's intimate involvement in Haiti's political affairs for the near future.

Let us work to alleviate all of Haiti's problems--environmental degradation, extreme poverty, starvation, and social chaos--not just the political crisis. This is critical to stabilizing the country, preventing a mass exodus of refugees, and ensuring that future political crises will be weathered not by street violence but by the rule of law and democracy.

Mr. Speaker, where the United Nations once called Haiti a ``silent emergency,'' the plight of this country screams out for our assistance. We have a moral imperative to uphold democracy in Haiti, and to ensure that Haiti's people do not starve, that the environment is not obliterated, and that instead Haiti will become a nation of stability and opportunity. Haiti is a success story waiting to happen.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I say to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, my very good friend, that I thank him for yielding me this time, and had it been intended that this would be a bipartisan resolution, then Members in the minority would have been included in drafting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule because it works against the values and principles for which American citizens are risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan on this very day.

We are fighting for democracy abroad, but we will not allow democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives of the United States. The fact of the matter is, if this had not been a political document, every Member of this House would follow the line, ``Commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition Forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.'' But that is not all that is in this resolution.

This is not about stopping consideration of the underlying resolution. It is a pleasure to take the time to pay tribute to the men and women who distinguish themselves daily in selfless service to this Nation. I do this, as do all Members on both sides of the aisle, at every available occasion. But there are other important matters that are not addressed in this resolution. And the fact that we were not included in its drafting allows them to be pronounced during the course of opposing this rule as well as in general debate.

We have not, for example, recognized the efforts of our National Guardsmen and Reserves, who have left friends and families and civilian jobs to serve in Iraq. But this completely closed rule does not give all Members of the House of Representatives the opportunity to commemorate the outstanding service of all those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once this institution was considered one of the world's greatest deliberative bodies, and its Members were statespersons rather than professional self-promoters. Once Members of Congress were brimming with ideas befitting a proud democracy. But no more, Mr. Speaker. To all of my colleagues who showed up last night at the Committee on Rules with amendments that they thought could strengthen this resolution, I apologize to you for the majority's disdain for your contributions.

Actually, I had an amendment to this resolution that urged the President to provide Congress a straightforward and honest assessment of our past and future commitments in Iraq, as well as recognizing the selfless acts of the men and women in our service, who we all love and adore and applaud for their courage on a daily basis.

These are some of the many questions for which we are all seeking answers from the administration. Even

more, there are questions to which Congress has a constitutional responsibility and obligation to raise and demand answers.

Mr. Speaker, I asked myself last night as the Committee on Rules Republicans passed yet another closed rule, and 11 have been closed, 1 has been open this year, which stifles debate and shuts off meaningful contributions from all of the Members of this Chamber, I asked myself, What is the problem? The problem is that the majority has introduced this resolution for political reasons. C-SPAN will broadcast today's speeches and Fox News will run stories professing the patriotism of those on the other side of the aisle. Thus, the Republican majority hopes to disguise the neglect and misdirection they have shown in governing by not making this a bipartisan effort.

The Republicans have not established a record which helps all Americans, and are relying on photos ops and waving the American flag to get themselves reelected. It would be much more patriotic to address the perennially underfunded veterans affairs health care system. By the Bush administration's own estimate, their policies will exclude approximately 500,000 veterans from the VA health care system by 2005. This is shameful. President Bush also proposed an increase in pay fees and copayments in an effort to shift the burden onto the backs of veterans and drive an additional 1 million veterans from the system. It is shameful.

Our troops should be taken care of when we send them into battle, and be given the respect they have earned when we bring them home. America's veterans fight and fought for our freedoms, they should not have to fight for their benefits.

As the Republicans continue to protect the wealthy and act like show horses in front of the cameras, Democrats are working for the men and women in uniform and our veterans today as well as in the future. We will continue to applaud them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) who has fought aggressively for open rules on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, if this is not about foreign policy, then how is it that the chairman of the jurisdictional foreign policy committee brought it to the Committee on Rules? If it is not about foreign policy, why is the language for the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 referenced in this resolution? If it is not about foreign policy, why is the mention of the 16 previously adopted United Nations Security Council resolutions in this matter? If it is not about foreign policy, why is the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002 referenced in this resolution? The other side of the aisle is trying to defend the indefensible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, who may be able to tell us why it is not about foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my distinguished friend from Florida that I do not believe that the families of the people of Spain or Morocco or Turkey where bombs have gone off feel safer. So maybe they are in this world.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from California (Ms. Harman), the distinguished ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with whom I work regularly.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who also had an amendment that would have strengthened this matter had it been permitted by the Committee on Rules.

Three and possibly four, Mr. Speaker.