Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the ranking member of this committee, and the chairman for their initiative. I think it is long past time for this Nation to express grave concern and work with the international community to thwart Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and I applaud them for this resolution.

I do, however, feel compelled to ask an inquiry of the chairman and the ranking member, and it is this: we have seen, I believe, a growing concern about possible usurpation by the administration of congressional authority, particularly in regard to war-making and the use of force. I thoroughly intend to support this sound resolution. I just would like clarification that the resolution does not, in its efforts to rein in the Iranian nuclear program, authorize the President to use force.

I yield to my distinguished ranking member to address this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that clarification. I intend to support this most worthy proposal, and I think it is important that we establish for the record that this Congress is not intending with this legislation to authorize the use of force without approval of the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's reference to Madison. I have spent a fair bit of time studying Mr. Madison as well.

My question would be, where in the Federalist Papers or in the entire body of information from the Constitutional Convention do we see provisions for how this body should deal with the complete elimination of its Members or for how the executive branch should function in the absence of a constitutional quorum within the Congress?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) not only for yielding me this time, but for his leadership on this issue. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his work, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), all of whom, I think, have proposed innovative and real solutions to this problem.

It is the night of the State of the Union Address. The President of the United States is here addressing the assembled body of the House and Senate. Behind him sits the Vice President of the United States in his capacity as President of the Senate. The Speaker of the House sits next to him. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are here, the diplomatic corps, and the judges of the Supreme Court.

In midspeech, the television screens and radios across this country go blank. No one knows what has happened. A few moments later, one station reemerges on the air and says, ``Ladies and gentlemen, we have received word that a nuclear weapon has been detonated in our Nation's Capital. It apparently was set off very near the Capitol itself. We have no preliminary word, but it is quite possible that all Members of the House and the Senate and the President and his Cabinet, save one Member, have perished.''

At that moment someone must tell our Nation and must tell the world what happens next. The bill before us answers that question with the words chaos and uncertainty. There are provisions put forward that would give a constitutionally valid mechanism of rapidly reconstituting this body, of assuring the Article I checks and balances that were so important to Mr. Madison, to that individual, Mr. Washington, and to the Constitutional Convention. But, Mr. Speaker, 2\1/2\ years after September 11, we have not been allowed to debate those measures that are true solutions before this body.

We have argued here, and we have heard eloquent arguments that elections are important, and let me be clear about something: Not one proposal that requires or provides for a temporary amendment, not one, would eliminate elections. We all share that conviction, all of us do, and it is duplicitous to suggest otherwise.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding the gentleman from California and the Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary have sent a letter to our colleagues suggesting that people have attempted to ban elections. If the gentleman would wish to retract that, I would welcome that opportunity, because it is false, and the gentleman knows it. I believe it was circulated under the gentleman's signature.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

It is absolutely true. Not one proposal seeks to ban elections. What do we seek? Checks and balances. We seek to ensure that the Article I responsibilities of declarations of war, appropriating funds, impeaching a President, and all the other things that this body is tasked for in Article I, not the executive branch, are preserved, and the bill before us today does none of that. Does none of that.

It leaves this country and the world with an unelected person serving in the executive branch and claiming extraordinary unconstitutional powers, and that is perilous for a republic, not simply a democratic republic, but a republic where representatives carry the voice of the people to this Capitol.

Let me tell you what I think is wrong with the bill beyond that. In providing for a 45-day election, let me, first of all, say that many experts in this country have said a 45-day period is insufficient time for a genuine election, and that includes the head of the Elections Board of the State of Wisconsin, who said a minimum of 62 days would be necessary. It includes our own Member of this House, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former secretary of state, who has conducted elections. It is not enough time.

Furthermore, what happens if a State cannot conduct its election in 45 days? What happens? A nuclear weapon is not only detonated here, but, in a quite plausible scenario, it is detonated also in New York City and in San Francisco, California. Are they to conduct elections in 45 days in those circumstances? Will the Members subsequently elected not be seated? What happens to the structure of this body if a few Members survive, and then more Members come as one election is held? Who is the Speaker of the House?

And by the way, let me clarify something. The Constitution is absolutely

clear that a quorum is not a majority of those chosen, sworn and living, it is a majority of the membership. This notion that three or four people would be enough to have a House of Representatives flies so in the face of what the Framers intended.

The first official act of the first Congress was to adjourn for lack of a quorum. They did not believe for a moment that a handful of people should be present and maybe make decisions to take this country into war, or impeach a President, or levy taxes, or appropriate funds. A majority must be present. What happens until that majority comes back under this rule? Again, chaos and uncertainty.

We have an opportunity to discuss real solutions. A bipartisan, nonpartisan commission made up of scholars and distinguished statesmen, people like Alan Simpson from Wyoming, hardly, hardly a liberal Democrat, hardly a partisan, a true statesman, joined together and said let us look at this issue. To a person, that commission to a person began and said, we do not want to solve this by amending the Constitution. And yet after a year of study and review, to a person they agreed that that is the solution, with great regret, that we must resort to.

And, no, it does not take away your right to elect a Representative, but it preserves your right to have a Representative here when we decide how to respond to that attack. And it says you shall have the opportunity to have an election to replace that person as promptly as possible, through a real election, not a sham, expedited election that disenfranchises independent voters, as the bill does today. To a person these statesmen started with saying we do not want an amendment, and they reached the conclusion that we have to.

Let me close with this. On September 11, on flight 83, those passengers gave their lives to give us a second chance. That fourth plane was heading here with the full intent to kill everybody in this building if it possibly could. We know that our adversaries would seek nuclear weapons. We know nuclear materials are available. We know if they get one, they will set it off, and they will do so in this Capitol. We have been given a second chance.

The September 11 Commission has shown what happened to this country and to the world when advanced warnings were not heeded and action was not taken. Shame on us, eternal shame on us, if we do not take action to protect the Article I responsibilities of this body. Protect the right to elect Representatives, but protect the right to have a Representative and protect the checks and balances and separation of powers that have preserved this great Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for indicating he would bring my proposed amendment up; but I would also

like to underscore that my belief is we should not simply bring my amendment up. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has a proposed amendment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has a proposed amendment, as do several other Members.

I proposed a rule that would allow for multiple possible amendments to be considered, plus ample time for debate and amendment of those amendments until we move toward two-thirds vote for final passage.

Last night on this floor I met with many Members of this body, and I asked them if they knew enough about this bill today to vote on it in an informed way. The collective answer was, no. Because of that, we should defeat the rule before us today, give this issue adequate time, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) said, and make sure that all opportunities are discussed.

I am pleased that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary wants to address amendments, but I would respectfully ask the gentleman to not just simply consider mine; consider others so various approaches may be debated and this body has a chance to choose the true and best solution.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for the time, and I thank my friends on the other side.

Let us start with where we agree. Everyone who has spoken has said that the ideal way to replace Members permanently is through elections. People have suggested that this is somehow a covert way or a slippery slope to do away with elections for Members of the House. It is not true. There will not be a single voice in the record of this discussion that argues that it is true. We all agree on that. Let us ask if we agree on some other things.

Do we agree that article I functions of the Congress should not be usurped by the executive branch? I think we should because we have sworn an oath to that Constitution; but if we do not act to ensure that there is a legislative

branch, what alternative is left but for the executive to usurp those responsibilities, and if they so choose, what vehicle and what body is left to rein them in from that usurpation?

I submitted an amendment to this very bill which was not ruled in order that would have at least had the Congress of the United States on record affirming that the executive, in time of crisis, should not usurp our authority; but it was ruled out of order. I find it frankly astonishing that my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who is such an adamant defender of the Constitution, is apparently willing to abrogate all of our article I until we can have special elections and an unelected executive could run the entire country.

Ask yourselves, would the Framers really have let two or three people constitute a House of Representatives when they themselves adjourned? Would they really have believed that two or three survivors or no survivors should allow an executive to take this Nation into war? Ask your constituents. Go back home. Ask your constituents: If your representatives in Congress are all killed, and a Cabinet member who you never chose and do not know who they are, have no information about their background, emerges one day and says I am now the President of the United States of America, should they have 45 days carte blanche to take this country into war, take away your civil rights and you will have no one here to express your concerns?

This notion that we are going to somehow appoint people who are totally unresponsive to the American people boggles my mind. We have been entrusted with our constituents, with impeachment of Presidents, with taking our country into war, with levying taxes and all the other article I duties; and yet somehow we are not capable of choosing people, former statesmen, former stateswomen who would serve this Nation well in time of crisis. Somehow that escapes our capacity. To create straw men as convenient vehicles for rhetorical argument, that would leave our country without a functioning Congress, is not a service to the people who wrote this Constitution.

There are two portraits of this gentleman in this hall that I revere. First of all, Washington's presence right here because he looks over us and reminds us to take our job seriously; but in the rotunda of this building there is a portrait in which Washington is giving back his commission as Commander in Chief of the Army to a republican form of representative government. He is not saying, I won the war, now I as chief executive want to run the country. He is saying there must be a Congress that runs this country; representatives of the people must run this country.

We agree that you must have special elections, but my friends have not made provisions for what else to do in the interim; and in the time in which there would be elections, they have created a vehicle which is laden with problems.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman cannot filibuster me.

We have waited 2\1/2\ years since we watched 3,000 of our fellow citizens die, and this body has not acted. They now give us 2 hours. We have not given this body time to debate. Ask my colleagues, as I did yesterday, have they had sufficient time to study this matter of this magnitude before we vote on it. They will tell you, no, sir, I have not. They will vote party line, as we far too often do here; but they will not vote conscience because their conscience has not grappled with this. I will not yield because this matters, and we have not been given sufficient time.

Give us time for real debate, not in a committee chaired by someone who is antithetically opposed to it. Give us time in this great body because it is our entire future that is at stake, not the future of the Committee on the Judiciary or the Committee on House Administration. It is the future of this body. Give us time; give the people time for real debate.

How can my colleagues say that elected representatives are sacrosanct and then not give those elected representatives time to debate a matter that concerns the very existence of this body? That, if for no other reason, is reason enough to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), as the majority leader of this body, if the other party were in power and this body were eliminated, would the gentleman be perfectly comfortable, under his constitutional fealty, in letting the executive branch rule this country, take this country into war, and do all of the other things reserved under that Constitution with no checks and balances?

Again, it is a false straw man to say that anybody here wants to do away with elections. The issue is do we do

away with the entire Congress temporarily until we can hold elections? We need those checks and balances. And they are not the only ones standing up for this Constitution who are opposing the alternatives of temporary appointments. We, too, are standing up for it. We are standing up for checks and balances, separation of powers, and all of the Article I provisions that are ensured in the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, earlier I asked this body to consider two questions: How would the Framers feel about the House of Representatives constituted by a few Members or no House of Representatives at all, and how would their constituents react if they had no voice as the country were taken into war by an unelected Cabinet member?

Let me ask this question: The distinguished majority leader proudly held the Constitution of the United States up and presented to us that he was defending the Constitution with this legislation. Where, my good friends, in that sacred Constitution does it say that the political parties will be authorized to select the candidates who can be elected for the House of Representatives? If we are defending the Constitution, how in the name of the Framers can we say that political parties will select the candidates for office? And if we are saying that we are protecting the rights of our voters, how can we do so when we disenfranchise all independent voters from selecting their candidate of choice, and instead put that decision into the political elites, the very people who you assert you are protecting the voters from with your base bill?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would please show me where in the United States Constitution political parties are authorized to select candidates for the House of Representatives, I would be happy to engage in this colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, my question is, where in the Constitution of the United States? I understand the Supreme Court has ruled that, but the point is if the gentleman is asserting that the purpose of this bill before us today is to protect the rights of all voters to elect their Representatives, effectively it is my position that you are disenfranchising those from independent parties or minority parties from selecting their candidates.

The second thing I would ask, since we are quoting the Constitution, is where in the Constitution or in subsequent Supreme Court decisions has it authorized the executive branch to function without checks and balances

from a House of Representatives or from a House of Representatives comprised of less than a quorum?

Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.

Mr. Chairman, this is as serious as it gets. Two and a half years ago, we were given a remarkable gift. We were given the gift of life itself, as a plane was heading this way with the intent to kill all of us. Had they succeeded, the institution that we hold so dear, that provides for representation on a proportional basis by the citizens of our areas would have at least temporarily perished.

We have no adequate provisions before us today to fill that gap should it happen, but we have no question today that we must confront that possibility. In an era of nuclear weapons, of terrorists who mean our destruction, we must accept our own mortality in order that we can preserve the immortality of this institution we all so cherish.

We have had a spirited debate today. I lament that we were not all given sufficient time to participate, that key amendments were not offered, and that we were not all here for this. I know well that we have many things to do, but this is about the very existence of the institution.

Yesterday I had the privilege of speaking with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I asked a simple question: Have we, in all sincerity and honesty, given enough

thought to the measure before us, given the gravity of the issue before us? And many of those colleagues looked me in the eye and said, frankly, no. And yet today we are moving forward towards passage of a bill, which well-intentioned, and I do not doubt the intentions of the authors of this bill, and there is merit to expediting elections, and I appreciate the give and take, but, my colleagues, please understand, this bill carries with it a number of problems.

I believe this bill disenfranchises independent voters. I believe it does not provide for situations in which States cannot conduct their elections in 45 days. I believe it leads to a chaotic process as some States replenish their Members and others have yet to, and the leadership of the House changes. But most importantly of all, it leaves us without a Congress.

My friends on the other side have suggested some things which I need to clarify, because I think they are not fair and they are not accurate. They have suggested some of us want to take away the rights of citizens to elect their Representatives. It is not true. Not a single voice in the House of Representatives today shared that message. Instead, we all said we love, and would adhere to and would defend to the death the rights of citizens to elect their Representatives.

But we have also said that no representation at all for a period of 45 days is a more grave and egregious insult to the intent of the Framers than would be temporary appointments in some fashion followed by direct election. Do not let anyone suggest to you that we want to take away the right to election, but neither imagine that the bill today will solve the problem.

At a time of the most grave crisis in the history of our Nation, we would be left without a United States Congress. Go home and look at the Constitution and tear out Article I. That is the consequence if we do not take further action.

Let me ask this, too. Go home and ask your constituents that if you were to perish, along with hundreds of our colleagues today, and a Cabinet member became the President of the United States, someone they had never elected and do not even know, and that individual chooses to send their son or daughter to war, would they like to have a Representative from their region there to express their views, or would they prefer that that seat be vacated? That is the issue before us.

I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, not because it is not well intentioned, but because we have not adequately given it the attention we deserve. If you can look yourself in the eye as you put that card in that slot and say, I have given 5 hours of study to this resolution, 5 hours, then vote your conscience.

But if you have not, please vote ``no'' so you can have more time to study this and discuss it with scholars.

Finally, we have asked and the chairman has agreed, and I am grateful for that, that we explore and debate the issue of a constitutional amendment to solve this. But I would beseech the chairman to please not only bring up my proposal, give other Members a chance to bring up proposals so the issue gets full and fair debate.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my preferential motion.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I support the underlying transportation bill that will put America back to work, relieve congestion on our roadways, and streamline the permitting process.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of my amendment that will strengthen the Buy America Act. The Nation's unemployment rate continues to hover around 5.6 percent. In a district such as mine, that number is considerably higher.

As we all know, the intent of the Buy America law was to ensure that when taxpayer money is spent on direct Federal Government procurement and infrastructure projects, those expenditures will stimulate U.S. production and U.S. job creation.

My sense of the Congress resolution is intended to reinforce that commitment. This resolution does not cost the Federal Government any money, but it will help the working men and women in my district and others around this Nation keep their steel jobs and earn a decent living.

My resolution will also strengthen our domestic steel industry, which is critical to our national security and ultimately to the future economic success of our country. Simply put, highway project managers have identified a way to circumvent the Buy America law as it applies to bridge projects that use Federal funds. My resolution is needed to clarify that law and close the loophole before it completely subverts the intent of Congress when the original Buy America provisions were enacted as part of the highway bill more than 20 years ago.

The original Buy America provision provided that domestic iron and steel would be used in Federal transportation projects unless its use increased the overall project contract by more than 25 percent. The problem that is emerging in the highway bridge industry is that project managers have begun to attempt to circumvent the Buy America Act by breaking bridge projects into component parts and applying the 25 percent test individually rather than to the entire project as required under law.

As it turns out, by breaking the project into smaller components, foreign steel providers are advantaged because it is possible to create situations where the 25 percent test is exceeded on smaller components, even though the test, if it were applied to the overall project, would be required.

The steel bridge fabricating industry increasingly is being forced to fight this misinterpretation of the law which, left unchallenged, could devastate the steel bridge industry. Most recently, on the Wilson Bridge project between Maryland and Virginia, the bridge industry argued successfully that the original bid process developed by the Maryland Department of Transportation, which initially called for dividing the project into smaller component projects, violated the Buy America Act. Maryland revised its procedures and now domestic mills and fabricators are building that bridge.

Congress needs to deliver a clear message to the Federal Highway Administration and to bridge managers across the country that Buy America provisions apply to the overall bridge project and we must, end any confusion or misinterpretation of the law.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my distinguished chairman and ranking member for their prior leadership on this and their continuing and steadfast support of Buy America provisions.

This is not only a jobs issue, this is not only a safety issue, it is a homeland security issue. We must maintain a vibrant and strong domestic steel fabrication industry. We must not allow entities to circumvent the intent of the Buy America provision.

This resolution helps the sense of the Congress clarify that intent, and I urge its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a matter that we would all

prefer to hope we never have to address, but that after September 11 we must address. I would ask my colleagues and friends to imagine the unimaginable. Imagine that the American people are going about their daily business while Congress is meeting in full session here in the House and the Senate is doing its business and suddenly the national news wires, television and radio are interrupted. They are interrupted by an announcement that a nuclear weapon has been detonated without warning in the Nation's Capital. The Capitol has been destroyed. The White House has been obliterated. It is evident that in all likelihood all Members of the House and Senate have perished, that the administration, the President and Vice President and most members at least of the Cabinet have been killed, that the Supreme Court has likely been killed along with thousands of our fellow citizens and government workers. At that moment, we must have an answer to the American people of what happens next, and at this moment we do not have an answer to that question.

It has now been 2\1/2\ years since September 11. On that fateful day, not only did we see live on television as thousands of our fellow citizens were killed in an horrific manner, but what we did not know was that a fourth plane was coming here in an attempt to kill everyone in this building and that were it not for the heroism of the passengers on that flight and fortunate circumstances that delayed it by a few moments, many of us would likely have perished.

The question then arises, what would happen in this event? We know that it is possible. We know that our adversaries seek nuclear weapons. We know that our adversaries seek chemical and biological weapons. And we know that in this era it is very possible, indeed probable, that one day they may obtain such weapons. Yet, Mr. Speaker and my friends, we have not prepared for congressional succession, and there are grave problems with the Presidential succession law.

Let me walk you through, if I may, a scenario of what might happen. First let me start with the Constitution. Under the Constitution of the United States, a quorum to do business is made up of a majority of the Members. House rules stipulate that a quorum is made of the majority chosen and sworn and living. Let us suppose that three Members of the Congress are on a trip abroad and while they are overseas, they witness this horrific event. Everyone else in this body has been killed. The President and the Vice President are dead. America is in crisis to say the least.

Those three Members under current House rules could declare themselves a functioning House of Representatives. They could elect one of the three the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Under current succession law, the third in line to the Presidency is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Let us suppose further that those three are from a party other than the current President. What we now have is a situation where three surviving Members of a catastrophe, randomly chosen more or less by events, have now become the entire House of Representatives, have chosen one of their own Members Speaker and that person has acceded to the role of Presidency.

We now also have a situation where under our system of checks and balances, the article 1 provisions of the Constitution, declaration of war, approval of spending and taxation, and a host of other issues that are the rightful jurisdiction of this body and the Senate working together are presumably going to be carried out by two or three surviving Members, if there are survivors; or we would have a President who could say that because there is no Congress, the President is declaring extra-constitutional powers, conceivably taking our Nation into war without a vote of the Congress, conceivably imposing martial law, conceivably spending hundreds of billions of dollars and doing a host of other events with no representation from the people of the States as a check and balance on that person.

And who might that person be? If it is not the Speaker of the House or the President pro tem of the Senate, it would most likely be a Cabinet member, assuming a survivor. I think we need to be frank. Cabinet members were never elected to their post. They were approved by the Senate, but they were not elected; and we need to be more frank still. Most Americans have not a clue, once you get past a couple of the top Cabinet members, just who they are. So if one of the lower Secretaries emerges on TV and says, I am now the President of the United States. Because there is no functioning Congress, I have authority to take this country into war, would the American people give that legitimacy? I do not think so. Would the Founders have given that legitimacy? I doubt that still further.

We must face this problem, and we must face it before the time comes. Because when that happens, should it happen, the very institutions charged with crafting a solution will have been destroyed in the very event that demands a solution. And who will be left? The American people will be left wondering who is their Representative in Congress. How does our constitutional system of government function? The world will be left wondering who now has control over nuclear weapons and on what checks and balances can we rely that that person will conduct themselves responsibly?

One of my good friends and colleagues has actually looked at this matter extensively, the matter of Presidential succession. The gentleman from California has offered a resolution that I think would address this, and I would encourage our colleagues to bring this up for a vote at some point soon, certainly before we need it. I would ask my friend from California to describe his resolution and some of the challenges it would address.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, could I ask my colleague a question if I may? There is a recent book out, I think, called The Vulcans, and we have read over the last couple of decades of plans for shadow governments, shadow administrations. I do not recall reading in the Constitution of the United States that the executive branch is empowered to create a shadow government. I do not recall reading it. I do recall, correctly I believe, that the Congress is empowered to provide through statutory language mechanisms to replace the President and the Vice President should those two seats be vacant.

In the gentleman's estimation and thought, as he has spent a great deal of time, which does he think would have more legitimacy with the American public, a public process enshrined in statute, debated thoroughly by the House and Senate and passed into law that gives a clear cut, unambiguous line of succession for who will be President and Vice President or a shadow government created covertly and operating covertly to run the institutions of this country without a Congress to exercise oversight?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his remarks. Have there been hearings yet on the gentleman's legislation?

Mr. Speaker, let me make one other observation that I find admirable on the gentleman's part. He and I are from the minority party. We are both Democrats. Everyone knows the administration is from the Republican side of the aisle. The gentleman's resolution assures that the President would stay in the hands of the Republican Party if he were to perish, at least the presidency would. So the gentleman is actually stepping up to the plate and saying he is ensuring that the President's Party would stay in power if the resolution were to pass and that circumstances could not create a scenario whereby, through catastrophe or assassination, the power of the presidency could shift parties. Is that accurate?

Mr. Speaker, I respect that, because one of my principles about this whole debate has been that it should not be a partisan issue. The continuity of our government is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. It is an issue for all Americans; and, indeed, it impacts the entire world. It is admirable that the gentleman has created a mechanism in his proposal that is nonpartisan in the sense that it would allow whichever party has been elected to the presidency to maintain that role in the executive branch even under times of catastrophe, and I think that is admirable.

Is there anything else the gentleman would like to add before I move on to discuss congressional continuity?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his remarks.

I should emphasize that we are by no means the only people who are working on this issue. Admirable and outstanding work, I think, was done by a working group within the Congress for a time period. That committee was chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who I think did yeomen's work. In addition, a number of other people participated.

Other resolutions providing for continuity of the Congress, who are for a remote Congress should unique circumstances arise, have also been introduced. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has a proposal for an amendment to the Constitution to provide for continuity. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) does as well; and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former Secretary of State from Rhode Island, has proposed a way we could have a remote Congress in extraordinary circumstances such as a threat or an outbreak of infection. All of those folks have done an outstanding job of presenting options, and we ought to be able to discuss them.

I would also commend to my colleagues I think an outstanding service to our country. The Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institution formed a bipartisan group of distinguished scholars headed by Lloyd Cutler and Alan Simpson, two statesmen if ever there were people to whom that title would fit, and filled in by scholars and former Members of the Congress, legal scholars, constitutional experts. I would commend my colleagues to their work. It is available at Continuityofgovernment.Org, and I would encourage my colleagues to study this work. It reviews the history of continuity issues. It reviews how special elections can be held. It outlines in careful detail the problems that would arise were an attack to occur, and I think it is, again, a service to our country.

One of the things that emerges from this document is that after close to a year of deliberation, that distinguished committee reached one conclusion, and the conclusion was something they resisted. The conclusion was that we cannot solve adequately the question of continuity of the House of Representatives without a constitutional amendment.

I would underscore this fact. Not one member who served on that commission, and, again, it was a bipartisan commission, not one member began their service thinking that they wanted to amend the Constitution even to address something of this magnitude. But they all agreed after studying the matter that, regrettably, in order to provide real continuity, we must amend that magnificent document. No one races into that, no one sets out to amend the Constitution lightly, but we must have continuity of this government.

Let me walk through, if I may, a few of the issues that could arise that have not yet been addressed. I talked a little bit about what constitutes a quorum. Remember that our government is bicameral, our legislative branch. We have a House and a Senate. The framers wanted the various regions of our States to have their own representatives. And it is absolutely true that no one in this body has ever served who was not elected. We hold that very dear to our hearts. Some have said under no circumstances should we deviate from that.

But here is the problem. The Constitution says that if vacancies occur in the House of Representatives, executives of the States shall issue writs of election. Under normal circumstances, where you have lost one or two Members and have 430 or 434 to continue the people's business, it is not a problem. But when you have two surviving Members, or no surviving Members, you are left without a House of Representatives until you can have an election.

How long does it take to have an election? We have spent a great deal of study and time on this. If you talk to various people who are experts in this field, different numbers emerge. But the critical point is this: even the fastest number you can come up with, until that time can be completed, you are without a House of Representatives.

Frankly, most people with whom I have spoken who are experts and scholars in this field have suggested that a minimal probable length of time would be about 3 months. From the time of catastrophe in order to have real and meaningful elections, would be about 3 months. Anything less than that poses extraordinary logistical challenges and poses some real constitutional challenges potentially.

Some have proposed, and I disagree with this proposal, but some have proposed that we mandate elections within 45 days of a catastrophic loss of Members.

Let me be clear about something: everyone agrees who studied this issue that we want to maintain the tradition of special elections for permanent replacement of Members. But this Continuity of Government Commission and myself and many other scholars have said we are gravely concerned about a 45-day period with no House of Representatives, because how do the article I of the Constitution functions get carried out without a House of Representatives? Who carries those out? Who assumes those?

Yes, it is true that no one has ever served in the House of Representatives that was not elected. But it is also true our country has never functioned without a House of Representatives. It has never functioned under an executive branch alone.

Some have said if there were a catastrophe, the survivors would do the right thing. There is an assumption of survivors, first of all, which there may well not be. But, beyond that, the reason the framers created checks and balances is they were gravely concerned

about vesting too much power in the hands of an individual without checks and balances. They rebelled against such a system. The revolution was all about overthrowing an unelected monarchy who functioned without effective checks and balances.

To assume that a survivor who assumes the executive branch would do the right thing and that we do not need a Congress for up to 45 days strikes me as a direct insult to the fundamental insights of the people who wrote our Constitution, even if you could have a 45-day election. But how would we get to 45 days under the proposals that have been offered?

Well, the Congress, which has constitutional authority to do so, would tell the States you cannot have a primary election because there is not time. Instead, the major political parties will select the candidates, thereby disenfranchising all the voters from choosing the candidates in the primary and thereby prohibiting most people who could run for office from standing for candidacy.

What is more, in an expedited election of this sort, Americans living overseas, including very likely the very young men and women who would be dispatched to try to defend our country, could well be disenfranchised because there was not the time to get them the votes and get them ballots.

So the proposals that we could have a mandated 45-day election leave our country with no functioning Congress for 45 days, and I should say as long as 75 days if it is proximal to a pending regular election; no House of Representatives, no article I functions; further, they mandate that the States allow the parties to select the candidates, when our dear Constitution has never once mentioned the word ``party'' in its entire history. They disenfranchise independents from standing for office, they disenfranchise overseas voters.

And there are still more problems. Under this 45-day mandate, what happens if one State manages to conduct its election in 30 days, and if newly elected Members arrive at Congress and they are the first ones here and say there is nobody else here, we declare ourselves a functioning House of Representatives, and elected one of our Members Speaker of the House, who, by the way, under some circumstances could thereby become the President?

Two days later yet another State, somewhat larger this time, gets its elections completed, and they arrive at the House of Representatives, and their Members are sworn in. They say we have more Members now. Someone from our State will be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. And so it goes, until at last everyone is here. Is that what we need at a time of the greatest crisis in our Nation's entire history, that sort of ambiguity? I submit that it is not.

There is a further problem. If we pass a law that says all States must conduct elections in 45 days, what happens if this institution is struck by a nuclear weapon and some State capitals are taken out simultaneously? Al Qaeda targeted four different sites on September 11.

If they target Washington, D.C., New York City, and Sacramento, California, do the people of New York, do we really expect them to conduct a special election within 45 days after New York City has been hit by a nuclear weapon? Do we expect California to do so after its capital has been destroyed? Or do we just pretend that could not happen and hope for the best? I think we have learned in the last few weeks that hoping for the best does not work, that we have to prepare.

There is an alternative, and it is an alternative I reached with great contemplation and with great study by some of the most distinguished scholars I could speak with, and here it is:

It is that we must find a way to temporarily, and I emphasize temporarily, reinstate this House of Representatives as quickly as possible in order that the people's business can be conducted, that we have checks and balances, that we have proportionate representation, that it is not just an executive or, even worse, a shadow government running our country.

To do that will, regrettably, require a constitutional amendment, but it is not something that will sound extraordinary when I explain it. It is this: the people have elected us as their representatives to make decisions as profound as taking our Nation into war, as taxation and a host of other issues described in article I of the Constitution.

If upon our election, we generate a list of potential successors who could only assume our position if we are killed or incapacitated, and only if that death or incapacitation happens in the course of a catastrophic event, and only for the circumstance that it is temporary until a special election can be held, we would be able, within a week of a catastrophic event, to reinstate the entire House of Representatives and restore our functioning constitutional government.

Let me give you my own State as an example. In Washington State, if we were to create a list of potential successors who would take our place only in catastrophic circumstances, not in the normal course of events, that list could include former Speaker of the House of Representatives Tom Foley. It could include, on the Republican side, Slade Gorton, a man for whom I have the utmost respect. It could include, on the Democratic side, people such as Don Bonker, Al Swift, our Governor, Gary Locke. It could include on the Republican side former Governor and former U.S. Senator Dan Evans, Sid Morrison, former U.S. Representative and former Secretary of Transportation. These are distinguished individuals.

And here is the choice, my friends. If that horrific day happens and if that announcement comes on television, we must have the media know what to tell the American people, and they can either say for the next 45 days a shadow government will run this country with no checks and balances and no representation from you, the people; or they can say your representatives in their best judgment have created a list of statesmen and stateswomen who will temporarily fill their seats until you can have real special elections.

Then, instead of confusion and chaos and hasty disenfranchising elections, we would have a functioning Congress made up of distinguished statesmen and stateswomen who would take care of this country, who would do the right thing. And I would warrant that many of those people would not even stand for reelection or for new election. They would instead serve until the election could be held, and hand the country back to the newly elected people.

What I most ask is that we have an opportunity to debate this. It is 2\1/2\ years now since September 11. I began to work on this the night of September 11. I began to talk to the leadership of this body within a week of that time. And I have asked, pleaded, negotiated and discussed; and we still have not had serious consideration by this body.

On September 10, 2001 thousands of our fellow citizens had no idea that the next day when they kissed their families and went off to work, when they fixed their breakfast cereal, when they rode the elevators to their office or walked from the parking lot of the Pentagon in, they had no idea that they would be dead at the end of that day.

We do not know in this body if on any given day it is the morning of September 11, or if it is September 10 and the next day we will all perish. We do not know that. But we have to assume that there are people in the world who would dearly like to bring that about.

We do know that the weapons of mass destruction are out there. We know that a nuclear scientist from Pakistan essentially had an Amway- like system to help develop nuclear weapons internationally. We know the fissionable material is available in abundance, and we also know that if someone uses it, we are ill-prepared to address the outcome.

I have offered a rule for debate. The rule seeks to achieve fairness. What it does is it invites not only my proposal, but proposals by other Members of this Congress to resolve this issue, to be brought up before the entire body for discussion.

It says essentially, if you have a better way to do it, we are all ears. Let us hear it. Bring it up for debate. We will debate a series of potential solutions. Whichever one gets the most votes will become the new base bill. We will then take several days for contemplation, much the way the framers themselves would bring an issue up for discussion and then either recess for several days for contemplation or invite a subcommittee to review it further.

We would take several days for contemplation, because this is a matter of the utmost seriousness. Then we would bring that base bill which had received the most votes back with an opportunity for amendment, and then we would proceed to a final vote.

I would hope we could get the necessary two-thirds on that process, and I would hope it for this reason: that if we do not find some solution, be it mine or someone wiser than me, we leave this country subject to chaos and constitutional ambiguity and unelected shadow governments, which I think would mortify the people who wrote that magnificent document, and I think would mortify most Americans, should that event occur.

So I will ask my colleagues to consider the resolution that I have put forward. It is H.J. Res. 83. I think it is rather simple, as most constitutional amendments should be. I think it is reasonable. It should be a bipartisan effort.

If one is not compelled by H.J. Res. 83 and one thinks there are better ways, I welcome the discussion. Look, please, then at House Resolution 572. House Resolution 572 says we will have a debate and the rules for debate will be open. There will not be a committee chairman saying, only my amendment or my proposal is allowed. It will be the House of Representatives reviewing several alternatives, having the discussion, and trying to resolve this most grave of problems.

The entire Constitution was written in one hot summer in Philadelphia, several months. We have been 2\1/2\ years since September 11 and we have been unwilling, not unable, but unwilling to address this change.

There are people of good intention who I respect profoundly on the other side, but what I do not respect is the refusal to let other people of good intention engage in this debate. I find it profoundly ironic and troubling that those who assert that they oppose these amendments that I have offered and that others have offered is because they respect the sanctity of the vote, which I respect as well. Again, no one is proposing a substitute for direct election, for permanent replacement of Members. We are talking about temporary replacement. But they have said it is so sacrosanct, this principle of direct election, that we cannot even consider any alternative. And ironically, in defending the principle that one must be elected in order to serve in this body, they have at the same time said the people who have been elected to serve in this body are not entitled to debate this most serious of issues.

So we have been sent here by our constituents. They have entrusted us with the most profound of responsibilities; and yet some individuals in this body have said they will not entrust us with the responsibility to ensure the continuity of this very institution and to ensure that constitutional measures will exist in a time of catastrophe.

Please, I say to my colleagues, I beseech my colleagues, bring this issue up for a vote and for true debate. Let us not play partisan politics; let us not assume that one committee chair or 2 committee chairs have greater wisdom than this body. That assumption flies in the face of the principles of Madison and the rest of the Framers. Let us assume that the collective good intentions and intellect and scholarship of this body can craft a solution that will ensure the continuity of this institution that we all so cherish and will ensure that if that horrific day ever happens and we perish, we will perish knowing that our Nation will be left in good hands, rather than in confusion.

Mr. Speaker, the European Commission's antitrust investigation of Microsoft offered an opportunity to complement the recent U.S. settlement reached with the software corporation. Unfortunately, the Commission's ruling undermines the U.S. settlement and signals potential danger for the technology sector and for consumers at home and abroad.

The Commission's ruling will impose drastic anticompetitive penalties on Microsoft, including a requirement that Microsoft sell a degraded version of its Windows software without a media player. Microsoft is already subject to a tough regulatory framework that promotes competition and innovation, and European consumers and companies continue to enjoy the benefits of this framework.

The Commission's ruling, however, will now subject Microsoft to a new and contradictory set of regulations. The negative impact of this ruling will also extend far beyond the U.S. information technology industry as a whole. Competition authorities in other countries may now decide to follow the Commission's lead and reject long-standing principles of international comity, beginning a chain of second-guesses and doubts surrounding the U.S. in matters involving U.S. companies.

For all these reasons, I strongly urge our administration to use every available resource to ensure that the European Commission reconsider its current strategy and redouble its efforts to resolve this dispute in a manner that complements rather than undermines the U.S. settlement and which offers improved computer software, not dismembered operating systems with less efficient platforms for consumers and businesses worldwide.

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

Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman from Florida be so kind as to join us for just one moment for a colloquy?

I appreciate that. What I just wanted to clarify was, we both participated in the same budget hearing, and my recollection in that budget hearing was that in the outyears, the veterans budget increases at a mere 0.5 percent per year. So while it is a fine thing to speak about what we are doing for our veterans, no one seriously believes that 0.5 percent per year in the outyears will keep up with inflation, let alone medical inflation, and, further, let alone the inflation in medical costs of the young men and women who are returning from Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, that illustrates I think one of the fundamental problems with the budget we are considering today. I believe it makes false promises.

Now we are going to shift the topic to the environment and we are going to discuss not only the environment, but the false promises that underlay the President's promises and the majority promises on the environment.

My colleagues from the other side often say people know how to spend their money better than the government. There is some truth to that. But I will tell you this, people want to protect their environment, people want to invest in their national parks, people want clean air and clean water and are they willing to invest in that.

Unfortunately, President Bush has a string of unending, almost, broken promises on the environment. Under the President's budget, discretionary spending on environmental programs is slated for a $1.9 billion reduction, 6 percent below fiscal year 2004, falling $30.3 billion to $28.4 billion.

But the cuts do not stop there. The environment takes another whack in the President's long-term budget plan, dropping another $500 million in fiscal year 2006, with significant cuts falling on the land and water conservation efforts. Funding for the EPA would shrink by more than $600 million.

The administration has broken their pledge to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Large cuts have been made in water quality infrastructure funding for reducing sources of pollution. This includes a broad range of activities, including sewage plants, water purification facilities and targeted pollution prevention interventions.

And I would say, by the way, that many of our local and especially our rural communities depend on this funding to follow Federal mandates to clean up their water. And with that cut, we are going to shift that cost onto our local communities, onto our grandchildren and onto the environment.

In his budget projection, the President includes $2.4 billion in revenues not yet achieved that would only be realized if we drill in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Superfund program is funded under the President, but the funds no longer come from the polluters, they come from the general public in this case.

Finally, and I think most egregiously, this President promised the American public in his campaign that he would fund the backlog in our national parks. My friends, people love their national parks, and this President has broken yet another promise.

If you listened to reports that there were memos from the administration suggesting that Park Service employees deceive the public about whether or not they had real cuts and mislead them about the impacts of these budgetary cuts, it is very disheartening. Yet again we are seeing the administration telling well-meaning and honest people, do not tell the public the truth. We have seen it time and time again. Now we are seeing it on the environment.

I have a number of distinguished colleagues here who have been waiting to talk about this issue because they know well of its importance.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her insightful words.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.

Blumenauer), my dear friend who is a leader in the Nation on liveable communities and environmental issues.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my dear friend a question, if I may. Does the gentleman from Oregon consider the actions of this administration a breach of a promise when it comes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund?

Mr. Chairman, if I may ask another question related to that. Our friends all day have been saying the Democrats want to raise our taxes, presuming that everyone over there must be a millionaire, because the only tax increase we have talked about are on people who make $1 million a year or more. But this Land and Water Conservation Fund, is that an income tax? I do not believe it is. That is funding coming from oil and gas revenues from offshore drilling, is it not?

Yet another broken promise; yet another trust fund raiding.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just close with this. We have talked a lot about, I think, deception and broken promises. Let me read to my colleagues the comments of a memo from the Park Service administration to Park Service employees. They were talking, trying to prepare the employees in case someone asks, has our budget been cut, and here is what they said in their memo:

``If you think that some of your plans could cause public or political controversy, we need to know which ones are likely to end up in the media or result in a congressional inquiry.''

They then suggested to the administrators of the parks, the local parks, that ``you state what the park's plans are and not directly indicate that this is a cut in comparison to last year's operation. If you are personally pressed by the media in interview, use the terminology of `service level adjustments due to fiscal constraints' as a means of describing what actions we are taking.''

Mr. Chairman, the American people want us to support our parks. The American people want clean air. They want clean water. This budget fails to meet those goals. It fails to live up to the promises made by the administration and our colleagues on the other side. We need to reject this budget and put the priorities where the American people want them, and I guarantee that one of those priorities is environmental conservation and protection of our national parks.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friends and distinguished colleagues. I would like to begin by acknowledging the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for his good work, as well as my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their support of this. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) was also extremely supportive, and I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Saxton) work and kind remarks in this regard.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge Marie Howard of the Committee on Resources and the staff of the BIA for their diligent work on this project.

This legislation, as has been mentioned, distributes moneys which were awarded to the tribe in 1973 by the Indian Claims Commission. The ICC awarded the tribe $1.5 million for ancestral lands forcibly confiscated by the Federal Government.

The tribe initially refused the funds as insufficient, and the $1.5 million award was sent to BIA to remain in an interest-bearing account until the tribe requested its release. In a wonderful example of the power of compound interest, one which would no doubt make Ben Franklin proud, the original $1.5 million is now worth $13 million.

In January of 2002, the tribe was formally recognized, but it has scarce funding with which to manage tribal programs. Accordingly, the tribe unanimously determined to seek the release of its ICC award, to fund tribal programs to care for the elderly, expand health care services, provide housing assistance, cover educational expenses and create economic development opportunities.

The legislation before us today requires the vast majority of the ICC fund to remain permanently in an account collecting interest, and only allows the interest collected from the award, from this date forward, to fund tribal programs. This ensures these funds will be available for future generations of Cowlitz people.

The tribe is free to spend the interest accrued on this award as they wish, consistent with the legislation. However, to the extent to which tribal programs will impact local communities, I strongly encourage the tribe to work with local officials. The ICC allocated this money to the Cowlitz, and they will ultimately decide how to spend it; but those decisions will inevitably impact nontribal members as well. As a consequence, I strongly encourage the tribe to work with local officials and community members to ensure that this money is used to the greatest extent possible to the benefit of all concerned.

Finally, I would say that in seeking this money for the Cowlitz, my goal is to ensure they receive the funds to which they have been entitled. However, the passage of this legislation is

not intended in any way to influence BIA's evaluation of the tribe's pending land trust decision.

Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to accept the gentleman from California's (Mr. Filner) time.

Mr. Speaker, a week ago we all mourned the loss, along with our brothers and sisters and friends in Spain, of so many innocent civilians.

Having had the opportunity to live in Spain for 2 years, I would like to take a few moments, if I may, to express my personal condolences in the hopes that our Congress, in its entirety, will do so before long.

Como estadounidense y miembro del Congreso de los Estados

Unidos de America, quiero expresar mis mas profundas

condolencias al pueblo de Espana por la tragica perdida de

tantos inocentes en manos del terrorismo. Personalmente, tuve

la oportunidad de vivir en Espana durante dos anos, y desde

entonces llevo una parte de ese pais y de su gente en mi

corazon. Hoy mi alma llora las muertes provocadas por la

crueldad del terror. Hoy, todos somos espanoles.

Nuestras naciones han sido a lo largo de la historia,

aliados y amigos, unidos por los mismos valores y por una

herencia comun. Compartimos libertad, compasion, tolerancia y

democracia. Tambien es voluntad comun mantenernos juntos y

firmes contra aquellos que amenazan esos valores y matan

inocentes en nombre del fanatismo politico y religioso.

Cuando nuestro pais sufrio los atentados del once de

septiembre, el pueblo espanol y el resto del mundo ofrecio a

esta nacion y a su gente, apoyo, comprension y solidaridad.

Ese ofrecimiento sin condiciones supuso mas de lo que nunca

podremos agradecer.

Ahora, somos nosotros y el resto del mundo los que debemos

alargar nuestras manos hacia Espana y su gente. Permidnos que

os abracemos como vosotros lo hicisteis. Permitidnos guardar

el luto de vuestras victimas. Queremos agradeceros vuestra

lealtad y mantener el compromiso de llevar a la justicia a

los responsables de esta atrocidad.

Los terroristas nunca venceran. Su brutalidad y sus

objetivos son contrarios a la civilizacion, a la decencia y a

las aspiraciones de los seres humanos.

Nunca venceran, pero hasta que podamos con ellos de una vez

por todas, tendran que pagar un precio muy alto. No hay mayor

evidencia de sus errores que este acto atroz de crueldad

contra gente inocente que iba a su trabajo o a su centro de

estudios. Por ello, debemos mantenernos unidos frente al

terror, unidos con nuestros amigos y aliados, unidos con

Espana.

Cuando vivi alli y aprendi su bonita lengua con mis grandes

amigos, me impresiono el hecho de que la frase ``I'm sorry''

signifique realmente ``lo siento''. Permitanme decir a mis

amigos espanoles que ``sentimos'' su perdida. Sabemos lo que

es ese dolor, esa tristeza y la indignacion e impotencia por

unas muertes tan injustas. Hemos sentido en carne propia el

drama del terror y lo volvemos a sentir con vosotros.

No hay palabras que puedan consolar tanto dolor, pero

debeis saber que en este momento no estais solos. Juntos,

triunfaremos. Llevaremos a los responsables ante la justicia

y mas importante: les ensenaremos con el ejemplo de nuestros

dos grandes paises, que existe un camino mejor. Un camino que

demuestre nuestra fuerza comun y nuestro amor por la

libertad.

Fuerza, amigos espanoles . . . fuerza, coraje, y animo.

Estamos con vosotros, hoy y siempre.

(English translation of the above statement is as follows:)

As an American citizen and member of the Congress of the

United States of America, I want to express my profound

condolences to all of the people of Spain for the tragic loss

of so many innocents at the hands of terrorists. Having lived

in Spain for 2 years, part of my heart and soul will always

remain in Spain and part of Spain will always be within me.

Today, my heart and soul are saddened by the losses and

outraged by the inhumanity of the attackers. Today, we are

all Spanish and we have all lost good people and friends.

Our nations have long been allies and friends, united by

shared values and a common heritage. Liberty, compassion,

tolerance, and democratic institutions are dear to all of us.

So too is our willingness to stand together against those who

would threaten those values and who kill innocents in the

name of political and religious zealotry. Because of our

shared values, we are now also united in suffering and loss.

When our Nation suffered on September 11th, the people of

Spain and the rest of the world reached out to offer our own

Nation and our people comfort, support and solidarity. That

outpouring of kindness and support meant more than we could

possibly express at the time.

Now, it is we and the rest of the world who reach out our

hands to Spain and to all of the people of Spain. Let us

embrace you now as you embraced us. Let us comfort you now as

you comforted us. Let us grieve with you for your losses. And

let us also pledge our loyalty to you and our commitment to

bring those responsible for this atrocity to justice.

In the end, the terrorist will never win because their

methods of brutality and their goals are contrary to

civilization, contrary to decency, and contrary to the

highest aspirations and realizations of human beings. They

will never win, but until they are defeated once and for all,

they will exact a heavy, heavy toll. Now, tragically, as so

often before, they have taken that toll from innocents on

their way to work and school. There could be no greater

evidence of the fallacy of their aims and beliefs than this

heinous act of cruelty. That is why we stand united against

them, united with our friends an allies, united with the

people of Spain.

When I lived in Spain and was taught this beautiful

language by my dear friends, I was struck by the fact that

the translation of the English phrase ``I am sorry'' is lo

siento, literally, I feel it. Lo siento, I feel it. Let me

say to my friends in Spain that we feel your losses. We know

something of the feeling, we know the pain, we know the

sadness, we know the rage at such pointless, unjust

slaughter. We have felt these things ourselves and now we

feel it once again with you and for you.

No words can take that pain away, but please know in this

dark time that you are not alone. Together, we will prevail.

We will bring those responsible to justice and, more

importantly still, we will show through the examples of our

two great lands and peoples that there is a better path, a

better way. Let us never lose sight of that higher vision and

let the ways we respond to these tragedies show our true

strength and or love for freedom and for one another.

Courage my friends. Courage, strength, and compassion. We

are with you and always will be.

Mr. Speaker, those of us on the Democratic side of the aisle, when we arrived today, we were missing a familiar and friendly face. Ed Pence has been a loyal and valued servant to this country for 25 years. He has reached out to numerous people and he will be greatly missed. He retires at the end of this year.

In October of 1978, Ed joined the Capitol Police Force and dedicated over 20 years to protecting our safety and that of the visiting public. He is respected throughout the Capitol because of his professionalism, his compassion, and his friendly nature.

Ed also had a brief stint in the gentleman from Missouri's (Mr. Gephardt) office before joining the Sergeant of Arms Office as a trusted member of the Chamber security staff.

During this time, Ed has proven himself a trusted source of knowledge by monitoring floor activity and advising Members on upcoming votes. Ed was the man we turned to when we were planning our day or asking questions about the procedures of the day.

Mr. Speaker, Ed's dedication, work ethic, and devotion to this institution is worthy of the highest commendation. I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating Ed Pence on his well-deserved retirement, thanking him for his service, and wishing him continued success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this debate, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules pointed out that this is one of the most important bills we have faced possibly in our careers. Indeed, he is correct. Yet, we are given less than 24 hours to consider this. The most important bill in our careers, 24 hours to consider it.

It is part of a very troubling pattern, and I call my colleagues' attention to this: in the last 7 legislative days in this Congress, we have either authorized or appropriated more than $1.26 trillion of the people's money. The defense authorization bill we were given 3 hours to read before the vote. The Medicare bill, we may have a total of about 28 hours, clock hours, if we read around the clock to read this. The intelligence authorization bill, 8 hours. A total of $1.26 trillion, and we are going to have an omnibus appropriation bill shortly.

I would like to yield, if I may, to the gentlewoman from Ohio. I have asked one of the pages to take her a piece of text from this legislation, and I would like her to explain this to me. If we have had adequate time to study it, then we should know what is in it.

The text reads as follows, and I will invite the gentlewoman to explain what it means.

On page 13, actually of the interpretive paper from the Republican party, it reads, ``Plans would be permitted to substitute cost-sharing requirements for costs up to the initial coverage limit that were actuarially consistent with an average expected 25 percent coinsurance for costs up to the initial coverage limit. They could also apply tiered copayment, provided such copayments were actuarially consistent with the average 25 percent cost-sharing requirement.''

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) to explain what that means.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. I believe the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has pointed out we have had adequate time to study the legislation. I presume she is going to vote on it. This is a summary provided by her Republican party, yet she fails to be able to explain it.

I would invite anyone here present with us today from the majority party, or who plans to vote from the minority party, to please explain what it is we are voting on. I would invite the next person to offer that explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

I cannot get up and say this bill is awful entirely. I think there are some very good parts, and I think some good efforts have been put into it, but I have two concerns.

First of all, side effects. I think the side effects of this bill may well be fatal to some, and more importantly, I believe that most Members on both sides of the aisle have not really read this bill and do not fully understand it.

Earlier tonight, I invited the gentlewoman from Ohio to explain a simple passage.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, the point I am making is I do not think the gentlewoman has actually read the bill sufficiently to explain it.

I spent 23 years of my life in health care. I hold a doctorate in clinical psychology. I have spent hours on this bill. My eyes are exhausted. I must say I do not know fully well enough what is in it.

My colleagues have said to us, and I agree, this is one of the most important bills that we will face in our career, and yet my colleagues have given us less than 24 hours to look at it.

The great philosopher Socrates said this when the politicians of Athens imprisoned him, he said to his the young people he taught, he said, These people have imprisoned me for pointing out to them how little they know. Instead of being angry at me for pointing that out, they should be angry at themselves for knowing so little.

His advantage was he admitted that he did not know. What I would ask the gentlewoman is a simple request that we almost never do here. Let us break with precedent. Let us say, you know what, this is important, we are moving too fast. I look around this room and I will say to my distinguished colleagues I bet you, you have not read the bill carefully, and you really, fully cannot explain it to your constituents, and if you have not and if this bill spends $400 billion of the taxpayers' money and is going to blow a hole in the lid of this deficit and is going to deprive people who desperately need pharmaceutical care, then why do we not just take a little bit of time and read it? Who knows, I might actually like it well enough to vote for it, but I cannot vote for something you have not given us enough time to read.

That is what the people of expect of us when they send us here. That is what a republic is all about it, but we do it a great disservice in this institution of late.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I profoundly appreciate the hard work that has gone into this legislation but, my friends, we know that it is 1,200 pages long, it spends $400 billion of the taxpayers' money and no one in this body save the conference members have had more than 3 hours to read this.

It is a fine thing to stand up and say we support our troops, and we all do. But the fact is we should not be voting on this today because we have not read it. We should vote next week on this, after we have had time to think about this seriously. If we truly care about our veterans, let us care enough to read the legislation, and if we truly care about our troops, let us care enough to read this legislation.

I will vote ``present'' because I do not have enough information to vote yea or nay, and I regret that profoundly.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

I appreciate the gentleman's clarification of that.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the comments from my colleagues, and I thank the chairman of the committee for his willingness to accept this.

I just want to briefly add my support for this. This is about jobs. It is about national security, and it is about efficient transportation. It is about jobs because we need to preserve the fundamental principles of the Buy American Act. Steel fabricators, steel producers in this country produce a high-quality product. They employ thousands of Americans with family-wage jobs, and the Buy American Act assures that they will continue to do so. It is about national security because we must sustain the domestic steel fabrication and manufacturing industry both for defense purposes and for transportation purposes. And, finally, it is about transportation efficiency. An efficient, quality, modern and economically sound steel fabrication industry is absolutely essential to the viability of our transportation system. I applaud the gentleman for his leadership, and I thank the Chair for his willingness to support this.