Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield 5 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am confident we will find overwhelming support in the House for this measure. I am certain it will be bipartisan to a very great degree. I certainly expect to be voting for it.

I would simply make one observation in the process, however. We should not be surprised that FEMA is at this point running out of money, because in the conference on the legislative appropriation bill last year when additional supplemental funding for FEMA was being attached, a number of us on this side of the aisle warned at that time, I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) did, I know I did, we warned at that time that because we were appropriating $800 million less than the historical average of the last 5 years, we would not have enough money without additional funding. And now because of that shortfall, it is obvious we have no choice but to move tonight.

I would simply say I hope in the future any administration, regardless of party, will request the amount that represents their full expectations of national need in terms of dealing with disasters.

I would also hope in the long run we can come up with a better way to finance national disasters, because it seems to me that there ought to be some kind of a self-insurance fund established between the States, backed up and guaranteed by the Federal Government so we do not have to keep funding this on a horseback basis every time there is another problem. We ought to be able to fund this program much the way we fund worker's compensation, with an insurance fund into which States buy on an experience-rated basis. That would be much more fiscally responsible than the way we go about it these days.

Having said that, I urge support on both sides of the aisle for this request. I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is most concerned about it. These storms have affected his district significantly. I have been to his district, and it is a beautiful place. As soon as we can get this money down to those folks who need it, the better.

There are a lot of my neighbors in Wisconsin who spend their winters in areas of Florida hit by these two storms, and we fully expect yet another storm to be hitting the Southeastern region of the country within a very short period of time. I think we have no choice tonight but to act on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

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

Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker be kind enough to inform me how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I at this point have no further requests for time. There may be one other Member coming. So if the gentleman from Florida needs more time, I would be happy to yield him 2\1/2\ additional minutes.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe that no two people in this House have worked harder to keep partisanship or any other illegitimate consideration out of this issue than have the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). They have proceeded in tandem to try to produce concrete, as opposed to theoretical, results for the military families in this country who are deserving of a decent place to live.

But what we are being faced with is this: my mentor in this House, when I first came, was Dick Bolling from Missouri who for many years served this House in spectacular fashion on the Committee on Rules, and he often told me that the greatest enemy to true legislative progress was what he called ``dung hill politics.'' By that he meant Members being more interested in preserving the jurisdiction of their committee or the narrow interest that was associated with a committee or subcommittee, rather than focusing on the broader interests of the American people who we are supposed to serve.

It seems to me that this discussion tonight is an example of what Dick Bolling was worried about because what we have going here, as I said yesterday, is a charade.

The gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Texas have brought to the floor a bill which provides concrete assurances that at least 24,000 more military families will receive decent housing; but apparently the Committee on the Budget is unhappy, at least the chairman of the Committee on the Budget is unhappy, with the way the committee has gone about this; and so he intends, as I understand it, shortly to exercise a point of order which will strike from this bill the Congress' ability to deliver that housing to those military families.

In order to create an impression that these families are not being hurt, it appears that what the House will now hide behind is a motion taken yesterday to try to increase the authorization for this program, which would have the result, if the bill was enacted into law, of accomplishing the very same thing that is being accomplished by this bill. The problem is the way this Congress works, there is absolutely no assurance that a freestanding, independent authorization bill will go anywhere in the other body; and that is why, if you want to preserve that housing for those members, it is essential to keep this language in this bill.

That is what the gentleman from Michigan has been trying to do. That is what the gentleman from Texas has been trying to do on a bipartisan basis, and we ought to be supporting that effort rather than finding technicalities as reasons to deep-six the very fine work that they have attempted to do.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to respect the rules of the House, but sometimes the rules give Members powers to do things that they ought not do. Just because we have the power to do something does not necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do it. Sometimes it is important to exercise restraint. I think this is one of those cases.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) correctly points out that an hour ago we waived all points of order on a huge spending bill, many times more dollars than we have in this bill. There were many points of order that could have been lodged against this bill when it came from the Committee on Rules, but the House leadership chose to expose only one item in the bill to a point of order, and that is the item that would have delivered decent housing to 24,000 military families.

What the House did or what the majority did by adopting that rule is to say in effect that peace in the family was more important than the sure delivery of decent housing to 24,000 military families.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that the majority leadership has dictated to the House that it must allow this one provision to be eliminated, but there is not much we can do about it and I also unfortunately have to concede the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Unless the motion is adopted, Mr. Speaker, yes.

Mr. Speaker, what this amendment attempts to do is to restore the language just stricken by the gentleman. If the gentleman insists on his point of order, then obviously once again the House will have missed an opportunity to provide housing for these 24,000 military families.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a subsequent motion to recommit.

Unless the motion is adopted, Mr. Speaker, yes.

Mr. Speaker, this is the last opportunity the House will have to do the right thing for 24,000 military families.

This motion to recommit instructs the Committee on Appropriations to report the bill back with the cap lifted by $500 million for a total of $1.35 billion. This does not incur any additional costs. It simply allows existing funds and other assets to be used for privatization.

The problem seems to be, as Members have pointed out, that CBO wants to charge these privately raised funds against the budget allocation, which does not make any sense to anyone who lives in the real world. Any Member who has visited a military base and seen family housing knows this is a real need. Raising the cap enjoys broad support on both sides of the aisle and the White House.

I urge Members to join in support of this motion to recommit and give military families the decent housing they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, to those who would cite the action taken by the House yesterday on the authorization bill, I would simply say that was not a substantive fix. That was a political fix, which is going nowhere because there is no assurance whatsoever that that bill will pass. This bill is a must-pass vehicle. That is why this provision ought to be attached to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Let me simply point out to the gentleman from Iowa that the bill that the gentleman from Iowa is suggesting that we focus on is the bill that is going nowhere for the next 6 weeks either. The only difference between this bill and the bill that the gentleman is now purportedly supporting is that this bill will after the summer recess go somewhere. The bill the gentleman supported yesterday is going nowhere. That is a big difference to military families.

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 think that the speech we just heard indeed does illustrate rather dramatically the difference in priorities between most of us on this side of the aisle and many others on that side of the aisle.

What is before us is this: we routinely see Members of both parties in this House talk about the need for shared sacrifice, and we routinely see Members of both political parties posing for political holy pictures because they both profess to be so concerned about the welfare of our soldiers who are fighting our wars on behalf of our national interest. But this rule walks away blatantly--it walks away from our obligation to those military families who are the backbone of our military efforts, whether in Iraq or other places around the world.

Now, the bill as it was reported by the Committee on Appropriations at the request of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who is the primary mover on this issue, included a provision which allowed the Military Housing Privatization Program to continue to operate. That is important, because 160,000 military families right now live in sub- standard housing, and the provision in this bill to raise the cap on that program would have helped 50,000 of those military families to wind up living in decent housing. This rule will allow a single Member of this House to knock out that provision.

So here we are in the middle of a war. We talk about shared sacrifice, but in the end, how does that shared sacrifice really apply? To some folks in the military, those folks are asked to do their duty not just once, but twice. Some of them have already done one tour in Iraq. Now they are being called upon to do it again. Meanwhile, the rest of us in the country can sit back and ``sacrifice'' by accepting our tax cuts.

Now, the gentleman who just spoke, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, produced a budget resolution which sacrificed virtually every national priority to his preference that we provide supersized tax cuts to people who make $1 million a year. So the budget resolution which that gentleman brought to the floor guaranteed that we were going to be able to give $90,000 tax cuts to people who make $1 million a year.

Where did the money come from? By squeezing on military housing, by squeezing on aid to education, by squeezing on health research at NIH, by squeezing on law enforcement funding.

The gentleman has very frankly stated his priorities, and I congratulate him for his honesty. I do not think much of his judgment, however, because if we were to follow his judgment and if we vote for this rule, that gentleman will be allowed to strike this provision on military housing.

If we follow this rule, if we allow this rule to pass, we will be in a situation where one Member of the House can exercise his personal preferences and knock out the provision that the Committee on Appropriations, on a bipartisan basis, put in this bill, to try to provide some help to the people who are doing the most to support the national policies of this country, and that is military families. I think that the result of this rule would be shameful.

Now, frankly, I was surprised when I heard the gentleman from Iowa oppose the rule, because this rule is here because of his pressure on the Committee on Rules. But, Mr. Speaker, now as I think about it, I finally realize what the game is. The gentleman from Iowa wanted the Committee on Rules to do the dirty work. He wanted them to directly eliminate that provision, rather than having to take the personal heat by standing up and knocking out that provision on a point of order.

Well, I would suggest the way to correct this problem is to vote down this rule, to vote down the previous question so that we can bring to the House a bill which protects this provision. The rule provided waivers for all kinds of other provisions in the bill. Why did it exempt from that protection military families who need our help the most?

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, we are not legislating here today. We are engaging in a giant game of charades. Let me explain. The gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from Florida, is the senior Republican on the Committee on Appropriations. I am the senior Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations. We are absolutely as one on this issue. I totally agree with everything the gentleman just said. What I would like to do is to repeat what he said in a slightly different way to drive home the point that he was making.

What has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that the Committee on Appropriations brought to this floor earlier today the military construction bill which contained a provision which enabled us to improve military housing for thousands of young military families who are sacrificing more than anybody else in this country because of the Iraq war.

When we did that, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget made known his unhappiness with that action because it technically breached the previous budget resolution which the Committee on the Budget had pushed through this House on an earlier date. So the chairman of the Committee on the Budget made known his intent to eliminate that provision by making a point of order against it when it was before the House. That meant that that action would effectively deny that improved military housing to somewhere between 23,000 and 50,000 additional military families.

So now what is happening is this. Because evidently some people are uncomfortable with their being politically exposed on that issue, we now have seen the authorizing committee ask to bring this bill to the floor which purports to accomplish the very same thing that was accomplished by the appropriations committee. The only reason that this is allowable under House rules and the appropriations bill was not is because the gentleman's ability to make a point of order lies only on a bill which has been reported from a committee. This provision that is before us was never considered by the committee and so, therefore, it is exempt. So it is a procedural loophole which is being used by the Committee on the Budget in order to force this House to go through this outrageous charade, and the net result is what?

The result will be that the bill now before us will not pass. We have absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that it will be passed in the Senate. So this is probably on a short track to nowhere. Meanwhile, the one bill that we know will pass, the military appropriations bill, will now fall victim to a point of order that will be lodged by the gentleman from Iowa. The result is the only vehicle which is guaranteed to pass will no longer contain the provision helping military families. A vehicle which is not going to go anywhere will contain that provision that does not help anyone.

The bill that is before us today is not a substantive fix. It is a political fix. It takes care of a few people's political problems, but it does not solve the problem of the military families. This is an outrageous charade. I welcome the action of the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Missouri in at least trying to do what they can to help these military families get the housing assistance they need, but we would not have had to go through this if we had simply allowed the Committee on Appropriations to proceed with its bill; and even though we are allowing this committee to take this action today, there is no guarantee whatsoever that this action will produce one additional decent house for a military person in this country. The only guarantee is to vote for the military construction bill with that provision.

Right now this entire issue is in the hands of the gentleman from Iowa. If he wants to effectively deny military families that decent housing, he will proceed to object to the provision in the military construction bill. I do not think we are going to fool anybody with the charade that is being participated in by bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I would simply ask the gentleman, does he mean that even though his party controls both Houses of the Congress that they are not going to be able to pass a Military Construction appropriation bill, one of the 13 bills that must pass this Congress before we adjourn; and yet he believes that the Senate somehow will miraculously pass this bill which has nothing else going for it?

Give me a break. I do not mind if the gentleman wants to fool himself, but

do not think he is fooling me with this action.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, the only way the gentleman from Iowa can get away from this is that the rule he is citing applies only to a bill that is reported from committee. This action is not reported from committee, so he gets around the very rule he professes to be supporting.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to say there is no financial difference whatsoever between these two approaches. The only real difference is the one being proposed by the gentleman from Iowa probably will not become law, and the other one will.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that this is an effort to try to complete action on this bill before Members leave. I would also note that, as I count the minutes that this agreement provides for, when you include a time for votes, it means that we will be very lucky to be out of here by 10:30 or 11 o'clock at night. So we would appreciate Members' cooperation if Members want to get out of here, whether it is to catch airplanes or do something even more constructive. It would be helpful if they would work with the committee to try to limit the time that it takes for consideration of these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, those who know me in this House know that I have a vast preference in almost all instances for economic assistance rather than military assistance, not just in the Middle East but in virtually every other area of the world. I think that for years we have been unbalanced in terms of military assistance as a policy weapon instead of trying to deal with more basic long-term economic and structural problems within recipient societies.

But I happen to believe that in this instance it would be counterproductive to pass the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from California. I greatly respect his knowledge in the area. I respect his passion. I respect his guts. But I think that at a time when we have been questioning unilateral practices on behalf of the White House, this would be a peculiarly strange time for me on this side of the aisle to practice some unilateralism myself, and I think that is what this amendment does.

Secondly, I would point out that it is in Israel's interest, as our most reliable ally in the region, it is in Israel's best interest for us to maintain the best possible relationships with our friends in the Arab world that we can possibly retain. And I would point out that right now we need Egypt to deal with the pending withdrawal from Gaza on the part of the Israelis. We need Egypt's help in training police so that we can see real security provided in that region and help protect Israel itself against attack.

And I also think that we do not at this point want to weaken Mr. Mubarak with his military because I think that civilian control of the military in that country is tenuous at best; and even though Mr. Mubarak is out of the military, it is in our interest for a decent and healthy and strong relationship between Mr. Mubarak and the Egyptian military to continue to exist.

I would urge Members to recognize that right now American influence in the Arab world is at an all-time low. Much exploitation has occurred against America's interests, much exploitation of Arab public opinion has occurred because of the activities in Iraq. Regardless of how we feel about that, we have to admit that that is the case with respect to Arab public opinion.

I think it would be a disastrous development for the Congress to take a unilateral action which would undercut the administration's ability to work with what moderate forces are left in

the Arab world, and I would strongly urge that we oppose this amendment.

I recognize the emotional force that lies behind the amendment; but sometimes we have to think with our heads, not with our spleens. This is certainly one of those occasions, and I would urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I take this time to simply point out to the Members that by the calculation of the majority, a calculation with which I concur, that if everyone entitled to offer amendments uses the full time available to them under the unanimous consent agreement, we will finish voting sometime around 11 o'clock tonight. If Members would like another outcome, I would ask them to see whether or not they can assist us in limiting the time taken by Members on some of these amendments, if Members would like to get out of here before 11 o'clock.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Kilpatrick

Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on a resolution condemning the International Court of Justice for rendering an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the Israeli wall and condemning the U.N. General Assembly for requesting such an opinion. This legislation was only introduced last night and strikes me as the type of knee-jerk posturing that does more harm than good.

I oppose the bill for a number of reasons, and I ask unanimous consent that my remarks appear during the discussion of H. Res. 713, which will occur later this evening.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on a resolution condemning the International Court of Justice for rendering an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the ``Israeli Wall,'' and condemning the U.N. General Assembly for requesting such an opinion.

This legislation was only introduced last night--and strikes me as the type of knee-jerk posturing that does more harm than good. I oppose the bill for the following reasons:

The ICJ rendered an advisory opinion on the legal consequences on the construction of the wall on its current route, an opinion requested by the U.N. General Assembly. The ICJ did so as it has done in the past, and the General Assembly was within its rights to request such an opinion.

Condemning the General Assembly for asking for an opinion, or the ICJ for analyzing the situation and making a nonbinding statement of opinion on the matter is essentially condemning people for asking questions or having an opinion--key elements in civilized discourse or democracy.

The sponsors of this bill, well-intentioned as they are, claim that the advisory opinion denies that Israel has a right to self-defense. This is not so--paragraph 141 states ``The fact remains that Israel has to face numerous and indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens.''

The resolution is factually incorrect:

It claims the General Assembly asked for an opinion on the legality of the barrier. They did not. They asked for an opinion on the legal consequences construction of the barrier.

It says that a similar security barrier exists around Gaza. The barrier around Gaza is on the armistice line, not beyond it, does not isolate Palestinian villages, or envelop settlements on territory described by the Israeli Supreme Court as being held ``in belligerent occupation,'' and therefore is not similar.

The resolution is hypocritical--it calls on members of the international community to ``reflect soberly'' on a number of matters-- although this body held no hearings on this resolution, and has not even had 24 hours to review it. I would hazard a guess that fewer than 2 percent of the Members of this body, or their staffs have actually read the opinion in question, much less reflected soberly on it.

The resolution is needlessly belligerent--it threatens that anyone who seriously considers the ICJ ruling to raise questions about the resolution of this issue ``Risk[s] a strongly negative impact on their relationship with the people and government of the United States.'' At this time, we need to be working with our colleagues in the international community to find a solution, listening to what they have to say, rather than threatening them.

The opinion states that construction of the barrier inside Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal under international law. I'm not a lawyer--but I know that if I build my fence on your property, I've got to take it down.

The resolution notes that the Israeli courts themselves have been critical of the barrier, and have directed that changes be made to the wall's route. While this is true, it does not mean that other states concerned with the stability of the region, should not have the benefit of an advisory opinion on the legal ramifications of the wall by an outside party.

Interesting points from that Israeli Supreme Court case (which only covered one portion of the fence):

86. Our task is difficult. We are members of Israeli

society. Although we are sometimes in an ivory tower, that

tower is in the heart of Jerusalem, which is not infrequently

struck by ruthless terror. We are aware of the killing and

destruction wrought by terror against the state and its

citizens. As any other Israelis, we too recognize the need to

defend the country and its citizens against the wounds

inflicted by terror. We are aware that in the short term,

this judgment will not make the state's struggle against

those rising up against it easier. But we are judges. When we

sit in judgment, we are subject to judgment. We act according

to our best conscience and understanding. Regarding the

state's struggle against the terror that rises up against it,

we are convinced that at the end of the day, a struggle

according to the law will strengthen her power and her

spirit. There is no security without law. Satisfying the

provisions of the law is an aspect of national security. I

discussed this point in HCJ 5100/94 The Public Committee

against Torture in Israel v. The Government of Israel, at

845:

``We are aware that this decision does make it easier to

deal with that reality. This is the destiny of a democracy--

she does not see all means as acceptable, and the ways of her

enemies are not always open before her. A democracy must

sometimes fight with one arm tied behind her back. Even so, a

democracy has the upper hand. The rule of law and individual

liberties constitute an important aspect of her security

stance. At the end of the day, they strengthen her spirit and

this strength allows her to overcome her difficulties.

``That goes for this case as well. Only a Separation Fence

built on a base of law will grant security to the state and

its citizens. Only a separation route based on the path of

law will lead the state to the security so yearned for.

A nonbinding opinion is just that. Disagree with it all you want-- pick it apart, show how it is wrong. But to condemn people for voicing an opinion is undemocratic and should be beneath this body.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the situation before us is that the gentleman from Virginia is objecting to section 717 of the bill beginning on page 66 which attempts to discipline the agency because the Committee on Appropriations has learned that USDA had transferred millions of dollars for agency funds to the Chief Information Officer of the Department for some of his favorite initiatives, contrary to the written advice of the USDA general counsel.

My understanding further is that these actions are in direct and total defiance of the Congress on this issue. They directly violate specific bill language in the fiscal 2004 bill which prohibited such transfers without the prior approval of both of the appropriation committees in the Senate and the House.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman insists on pursuing his point of order, the only practical effect will be that the Congress has declined to take any disciplinary action whatsoever against the agency after the agency has determined that it is acceptable to expend taxpayers' money in defiance of the law. I regret very much that the gentleman seeks to eliminate this language. If he does, there is not much that I can do about it, but I think it is a shame indeed when the Congress of the United States will not insist that an agency expends money only in compliance with the law.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I was simply trying to facilitate the committee's work in trying to reach agreement on language that the gentleman from Virginia on your side of the aisle indicated he wanted to see in this bill, but if the gentleman does not want to wait for us to do that then I would be happy to pass it by and move on.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I was informed that the gentleman from Virginia on your side of the aisle, that he was prevented from getting to the microphone by a Member of his own party. So I was not on the floor, I did not see what happened, but if the gentleman would prefer to resurrect old antagonisms rather

than to solve problems, I am perfectly happy to leave this mess exactly where it is.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Earlier in the day we had a dispute erupt between the authorizing committee and the Committee on Appropriations with respect to one language provision in this bill from last year's bill. Subsequent to that, we had another dispute manifest itself with respect to new language in this bill. As a result of that altercation, we had two sections of the bill which were stricken on points of order.

After that occurred, I discussed the episode with the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the subcommittee from the authorizing committee, which had objected to our committee's initial actions. The gentleman told me that what he was trying to get at was simply to make certain that in the provision that was carried in last year's bill that the authorizing committee would also receive notice before the agency could proceed to outsource or to contract for certain jobs outside of the agency itself.

This amendment is simply an effort to reinstate the language as I understand the gentleman from Virginia wanted it, and to also insert the language originally inserted in this bill by the Committee on Appropriations which would prevent the agency from transferring certain funds that the committee had indicated should not be transferred.

This is a simple effort on the part of one Member of the minority party to defend the institutional prerogatives of the Congress. And if the majority wants to accept it, that is fine with me. If they do not want to accept it, I could not care less.

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

Mr. Speaker, all I can say in response to the last comment is if the committees adhere more closely to the spirit of the rules of the House, maybe we will not tread so closely in questioning their motives.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to vote for this bill, and I am not going to vote for it for two reasons.

Number one, we have the continued saga of that ridiculous hole out in front of the Capitol, the Capitol Visitors Center. You remember back in the good old days when we had a budget surplus, and then we were told by the Republican majority that we could pass $6 trillion in tax cuts and still have money left over? Now we have dug ourselves into a huge deficit hole again, the biggest deficit in the history of the country. That hole in front of the Capitol, created for the construction of the so-called visitors center, really, in my view, is a symbol of what we have done to the Nation as a whole. We have dug a huge hole for the Nation.

In this case, in the case of the visitors center, you have an addition to the Capitol which started out to cost

about a quarter of a billion dollars; it is now up to half a billion dollars. And the completion date, I would bet you, before it is over, will slip to sometime in 2007. I just continue to think it is a ridiculous, overblown use of taxpayers money.

But there is something else in this bill that really bugs me. I happen to believe that the number one national disgrace in this country is the fact that some 44 million people are struggling every day without health care coverage. There is a provision in this bill which enables a study to go forward to see whether or not we will add supplemental health and dental benefits for Members of Congress under our health care plan.

Now, I happen to believe that congressional employees should have dental coverage, and I think that Members of Congress should have dental coverage. But I also think that every citizen of this country ought to have access to health care and ought to have decent dental coverage.

We just marked up the Labor-Health-Education appropriations bill; and in contrast to the consideration that we are going to give Members of Congress about adding new health care benefits, what did the committee do this morning with respect to health care benefits for the rest of Americans?

I will tell you: the chairman's mark on the Labor-Health-Education bill today entirely terminates the Community Access Program, which is the glue that makes health delivery to the poor work in 70 communities in this country.

The chairman's mark cut several other programs. It cuts Rural Health Outreach grants, which support primary health care, dental care and mental health and telemedicine projects. It cuts those projects by 24 percent.

The Maternal and Child Health Care block grant is only 2.9 percent above the fiscal 2001 level, which means that we have a 10 percent loss of purchasing power for that program for average Americans.

Then, if you go on, you see that childhood immunization, the cost to immunize a child has gone up by 24 percent since 2001. Appropriations have increased by only 15 percent. So we are having a growing gap in terms of our ability to immunize children in this country.

So it just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is a substantial gap between what we are willing to consider doing for the average American when it comes to health care and what we are willing to consider doing for Members of Congress.

I do not want to vote to deny health care coverage of any kind to anybody, but I want to say this to the majority in this House: if you vote for this legislative appropriations bill today, by God, do not dare to bring out an expansion of health care benefits for Members of Congress until you have also brought out legislation to this floor that covers health care for every American. And make sure that those Americans have the same kind of coverage, including dental care, that you would like to see for the average Member of Congress. Unless you do that, you will be giving hypocrisy a bad name.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I just take this time because I think it is important for Members to understand that when this bill is opened up that means that Members who think that they are protected under this unanimous consent request, they should not assume that if their amendments are at the end of the bill, they can simply come back tomorrow and they will be handled.

The Members need to protect their rights by being here at the time that the amendments need to be called up or else it is possible they could lose their right.

So I think Members needs to understand, everybody cannot go away and have a drink or supper until 9 o'clock. We are here working and if somebody needs to offer an amendment, they need to protect themselves. They cannot protect them if they are not here.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment to thank someone who has meant a great deal to the Appropriations Committee, the entire House, and to me.

Earlier this year, Scott Lilly concluded a 31-year career of service in the House of Representatives, mostly recently serving as the Democratic Staff Director of the House Appropriations Committee. Scott's career in the House was marked by dedication, distinction and an eternal sense of duty to serve the American people.

Too often, Members of the House are given all of the credit for what we produce or for the ideas we make real. In fact, the most difficult tasks are often accomplished behind the scenes by our hard-working staff. Whatever credit I may be due during my service as the Chairman and now Ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations, I must share much of it with Scott Lilly.

Scott first came to the House as a summer intern in 1966. After graduating from college he worked for the Missouri Legislature, spent two years in the United States Army, and in 1971, was central states coordinator for the George McGovern presidential campaign.

My collaboration with Scott first began in 1973 when he joined my staff, working for more than a decade as an associate staff member to both the Appropriations and Budget Committees. In 1985, Scott moved to the Joint Economic Committee, serving as its Executive Director and publishing a number of reports that attracted national attention, including studies on the regional disparities in economic recovery of the mid-1980s, and on the declining earning power of middle class Americans.

In 1988, Scott became the fourth Executive Director of the Democratic Study Group (DSG) serving under Chairmen Martin Sabo, Robert Wise and Michael Synar. During that period, the DSG played a central role in legislative reform issues within the House Democratic Caucus and provided legislative research to virtually all Democrats and to many Republican members as well.

Following the passing of Chairman William Natcher in 1994, the Democratic Caucus selected me to serve as House Appropriations Committee chairman. I then asked Scott to become the 10th Clerk and Staff Director in the 129-year history of the Committee.

When the Republicans took control of the House the following January, Scott stayed on to serve as the Committee's Democratic Staff Director, a position he held for nine years.

This past January, Scott announced that he would be leaving the Committee. While his service to the House may have ended, his public service has not. Neither has our friendship or my deep respect for Scott. Now, as a part-time professor at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute, Scott educates a new generation of public servants, who I know will be equal to the task because they are learning from the best. Scott also continues to serve and stand up for progressive principles as a senior fellow at the think tank, the Center for American Progress.

I am hopeful that, in addition to these new duties, Scott will now have the time to enjoy outside pursuits that he could not avail himself of while serving the House. Particularly, I hope that Scott will be able to return to his guitar lessons. As a fellow member of the bluegrass band, the Capitol Offenses, I know that like all of us, Scott might not be able to improve his singing voice, but maybe he can make some progress on his guitar plucking.

Scott Lilly's departure from the House was a significant loss for this institution. I would note with pride that Scott also leaves with many more friends, from both sides of the aisle, than detractors. Throughout his service, Scott always believed that political opponents don't have to be political enemies. That is a belief that is in too short supply in the Congress and in this town, but it is a belief that Scott lived throughout his service.

Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein noted in a Roll Call column last November the reality that ``dedicated professionals,'' like Scott Lilly, are what makes this institution work. Ornstein wrote of Scott and others like him, ``These are people who could leave at any time and command five or 10 times the pay they receive; instead they have provided the long-term glue that keeps Congressional deliberation and institutional memory together.'' I could not agree more.

For more than 30 years, Scott Lilly has used his great political talent and judgment to serve this institution and this country. Unlike some in this town, he has never forgotten that political talent is wasted unless it is used for a higher purpose. Whether he was working for the McGovern campaign, or running the Democratic Study Group, the Joint Economic Committee or the Appropriations Committee staff, every day he put that talent to work to make this a stronger, fairer, and more decent and humane country. This House has never been served by two finer staff directors working with each, other across the partisan aisle, than Scott Lilly and Jim Dyer.

Through it all, he has been my best friend and my wisest counselor. What more can be said except thank you and Godspeed in whatever comes next.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota, who just noted that between 1995 and 2000 government spending grew more slowly than did the economy as a whole and that we, in the process, paid off almost $.5 trillion in debt.

I very much appreciate the endorsement of the economic policies of the Clinton administration. It is too bad that those policies were reversed by the incumbent administration.