Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to serve on the Financial Services Committee under the leadership of Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank, because this bill is yet another example of what we can accomplish when both sides of the aisle work together. And this is not the first time that that has occurred, and I am sure it will not be the last when it comes to the results that come out of this committee.

As outgoing Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan once said, ``Free markets presume peaceful societies.'' The infinite risks associated with terrorism have demonstrated their potential to destabilize our markets, so I rise to express my full support for the version of TRIA before the House today.

I want to thank Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank, Representative Baker, and Representative Kanjorski for their stalwart leadership on this issue. I also want to thank all members and staff from the Financial Services Committee who have worked so hard to bring this to the floor.

The House version of the bill includes critical reforms that will help protect the American economy in the event of another terrorist attack. It includes important group life provisions, streamlines insurance filings, and gives consumers more options and protections. I am proud that this legislation has gleaned broad-based bipartisan support, and I encourage all my colleagues to support the House version of the bill today and in conference.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member and any other interested parties on the language related to the life insurance fairness-for-travelers issue.

I can tell you I just strutted in from helping my first graders with their homework. Just so you know, I have my priorities straight.

I spent a couple of minutes listening to your exchange and cannot help but chime in here and express my deep concern which I know my good friend from Florida (Mr. Meek) shares as well. We had our Governor and FEMA represent our delegation in advance of Wilma. You have got Katrina and we all are very familiar with the lack of preparation clearly and the aftermath of Katrina and the disaster literally of the aftermath of Katrina but then you fast-forward a couple of months to Wilma when we had 2 months that

FEMA could have learned from some of those mistakes and dealt with the preparedness issues that they were really poor on and the aftermath response issues that they received incredibly poor marks on. You would think that they would have fixed it. But in our case, our Governor and FEMA represented to us that we were the model State. I say this not to be too specific about any one State's preparation, but FEMA and the Florida government represented that our State was the most prepared.

We can tell you that if our State and their response to Wilma is the pride and joy, is the model for preparation in disaster response, then we should all be deeply concerned about the other 49 States and their preparedness and potential response for a natural or a man-made disaster like a terrorist attack.

You are absolutely right. On top of that, because we are about third-party validators and it is not all about just what we say, you have Governor Kean and Mr. Hamilton who the other day gave them a list of Fs on almost every major aspect of preparedness and what we should be doing in terms of response to a potential terrorist act. It is just one more example of their lack of caring, of their lack of competence, of the cronyism, of the corruption. Find a C word and this Republican leadership and the administration absolutely fit the bill.

We have got the first C word which is corruption. It seems like every day we have yet another example, a tragic example, it wrenched my heart to hear that we had a colleague of ours, the former gentleman from California, who pled guilty to bribery, so we have got corruption. We have ethics charges, some which are just accusations, some which have been validated, up and down the ranks of many of our Republican colleagues. That is one C word. Then you shift from corruption to cronyism. There is rampant cronyism throughout this administration. You have only Michael Brown, Brownie, to use as an example. When the President would put in place someone whose claim to fame in terms of his qualifications for being the lead expert on disaster preparedness and response was being the president of the Arabian Horse Association as opposed to having a deeply long resume in emergency preparedness, that just smacks of cronyism. What was his real quality in terms of being hired for that job? He was James Allbaugh's roommate. That was the real qualification when he got that job. You have Mr. Savavian, who was the procurement director in the White House who now has been fired because he was accused of wrongdoing.

Thank you just for the filling in of the facts. The list goes on in terms of the cronyism that is rampant through this administration. So you have corruption. You have cronyism. Then you have, as the gentleman from Ohio just described, the total lack of competence. Example after example. The proposal on Social Security. The way they handled Katrina. The way they handled Wilma. The deficit. We have an $8 trillion deficit.

Iraq. You have an $8 trillion deficit now. We have got corruption, cronyism, competence.

It is a culture.

Just a few examples of what you are talking about, we are talking about the role of the White House in promoting misleading intelligence when it came to how we got into the war and the Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or lack thereof. We are talking about the responsibility of senior administration officials for the abuses at Abu Ghraib. We are talking about the role of the Vice President's office and the award of Halliburton contracts, no information on that, no accountability. The role of the White House in withholding the Medicare cost estimates from Congress. The identity of the energy industry campaign contributors that met with the Vice President's energy task force.

We could keep going about the corruption, the lack of information, the lack of competence, and in fact, when we come back at our next opportunity in our next hour, we will continue to go on about that.

Mr. Speaker, you know, there has been a whole lot of twisted-up debate on time tables and whether we are insisting on a time table and withdrawal, and whether the withdrawal is immediate or 6 months.

When we talk about the drawn-down of troops, and the fact that we need to make sure that it is the Iraqi people that are ultimately responsible for running their own country, we are referring to the President's objectives that he said that he wants to see.

And the other day I heard the President talking about that we will withdraw and begin to withdraw troops from Iraq when we have objectives that are reached.

Well, what the heck does that mean? Does it mean that when 50 percent of the Iraqi battalions are fully independent? Does it mean 75 percent? Where are the benchmarks? I mean, it

is fine to say that we need to have objectives about this. We should not leave or withdraw troops until we meet objectives.

But what are those objectives? I need something concrete to be able to go home and tell my constituents. I mean, we have got 2,013 American lives that have been lost, and 50 percent of those kids have been kids under the age of 22. There is some serious accountability that needs to be brought to bear here.

And, you know, vague references to objectives that should be met by the President is not what I call accountability, not when you have $223 billion being spent on this war.

Your reference to what their philosophy is with pursuing this tax reconciliation, this tax cut package tomorrow as not being a conservative philosophy.

I will commend to you our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardozo's) comments, who is one of the leaders of the Blue Dogs. In his special order last night, with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), it is the politics of Scroogeonomics, because as we approach the holiday season, what they are doing and what they are engaging in, the Republican leadership is engaging in, Scroogeonomics.

We can only hope that tonight, as many of our Republican colleagues'

heads hit their pillow, we can only hope that they are visited tonight by the ghost of Christmas past, because that is how we are going to ensure, it is probably the only way that we will ensure it, through a visit of the ghost of Christmas past, that they are shown what the essential ramifications are if they actually move forward and pass this proposal, the cuts to child support, enforcement, the cuts to food stamps, the horrendous cuts in financial aid that they just handed down a couple of weeks ago in the budget reconciliation, Budget Cut Act.

Now tomorrow they want to give tax cuts to people who are in the top two-tenths of 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans.

We are not making this up. This is factual. That is who the vast majority of these tax cuts will go to. What is unbelievable in this Scrooge-onomics proposal of theirs is that they actually have the audacity to call the budget reconciliation act the Budget Deficit Reduction Act when you have got $50 billion in budget cuts in that and then tomorrow they are going to adopt, hopefully they won't, hopefully we will have enough of our colleagues visited by the ghost of Christmas past and they will have their consciences tweaked and they will vote ``no'' tomorrow, but then tomorrow we could potentially adopt $70 billion in tax cuts. I just helped my first graders with their math homework, but even they could figure out that that adds $20 billion to the deficit, $20 billion in which we already have $27,000 for every man, woman, child and newborn baby in this country. That is how much each of us owes.

I was referring to the holidays.

When you are talking about your faith, my faith, I am a member of the Jewish faith, our faith talks about the spirit of Tikkun Olam and giving back to our community and thinking of those who are less fortunate. We are referring to the party that claims to corner the market on faith-based values. If you look at every aspect of their agenda, there is not a component of their agenda that has anything to do with what our faith traditions teach us or with values or with making sure that the least of us and the least among us are assisted. We are supposed to be their voice. If you had listened to the religious leaders who have come to this Capitol and talked about how abominable they think this proposal is, both the budget reconciliation bill and the tax cut package tomorrow is, then you would know that they do not have the moral high ground in this debate whatsoever.

When Mr. Murtha, who has taken each of us, no matter what generation of Member we are, has taken each of us under his wing, I know I have had an opportunity to learn from him and be mentored by him and I am not on Armed Services or Homeland Security or any of the committees of reference but yet he is still willing to sit down. What was the response on the other side of the aisle to Mr. Murtha's jump-starting this dialogue and doing what essentially the Nation has been begging for and that is to make sure that this body has a dialogue and has a debate and a discussion? To question Mr. Murtha's patriotism. That was their reaction. It wasn't, Gee, how can we sit down and hash out our differences. It wasn't, Well, we don't agree with you on redeployment. No matter how you feel about to what degree or how quickly we should withdraw the troops, there is no question that Mr. Murtha is a man with 37 years of experience in the Marines and 30 years in this body, having been the chair of the defense appropriations committee on which he is now the ranking member. That is what they do.

They undermine and undercut and insidiously insult the patriotism of an unbelievable American like Jack Murtha, and it is outrageous. He deserves better and the country deserves better than where they have taken this debate.

You are absolutely right. Unless you believe that the contracting and the culture of corruption and cronyism and incompetence is reserved for contracting only in the Iraq gulf coast region.

We have a third-party validator, in the New York Times today, where in the gulf coast here we have Rosemary Barbour, the wife of the nephew of Haley Barbour, Mississippi's Governor and former Republican National Committee chairman, who now has apparently received $6.4 million in contracts by her company, and 10 separate contracts from FEMA or the General Services Administration without any bid. A no-bid contract.

The wife of the nephew of Haley Barbour, Mississippi Republican Governor, former RNC chairman, she has received $6.4 million in contracts for things like laundry service and showers and delivering tents. Not emergency needs 3 months after Katrina hit that would seem to require no-bid contracts, but 10 separate contracts from FEMA and the General Services Administration, no-bid contracts, of $100,000 or more.

Now, if that is not cronyism.

And a culture of corruption.

That we have been talking about, then I do not know what that is.

Did that contract have to be no bid? What made the wife of the nephew of the Governor, who is a former RNC chairman, who just also happens to have been a Republican Party activist, what made her the most qualified? Coincidentally? Coincidentally? Oh, gee, she just happens to be related to the Governor of Mississippi, who is the former RNC chairman and who happened to get a no-bid contract, 10 no-bid contracts for services that I would not deem emergency, that needed to not take the time we would like to require in terms of accountability for reviewing contracts and making sure it goes to the responsible bidder, the person who is going to provide that service in the most economical way.

I know we are coming in on our last few minutes.

Yes, like it is their piggy bank.

And, Mr. Ryan, if we could point to some of these things and they could justifiably say these are anomalies, these are outlandish things that only happen on occasion, but, look: pages and pages. Look how thick this notebook is. I am not making this up.

They do not have the connections. That is why they are not getting the work.

The wife of the nephew of the Republican Governor of Mississippi, former RNC chairman, $6.4 million in contracts, 10 separate contracts from FEMA and the GSA that were no- bid, for services like providing laundry equipment, delivering tents, and maintaining showers for relief workers.

No, we are saying there is a continuation of the culture of cronyism and corruption, and it is time to give government back to the people. And that is what we want to do next year, give government back to the people; make sure government can be responsive to the people's needs and provide for the needs of the people who need the most help.

We can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support and admiration for the American and International Societies for Yad Vashem, which will convene for their Annual Tribute Dinner on November 20th in New York. The American and International Societies for Yad Vashem are the development arms of Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, Israel.

The American and International Societies for Yad Vashem provide a great service to the

United States and the entire world. Through Yad Vashem's collection of testimonies from Holocaust survivors and families to the database of victims' names, they work to restore the dignity of those who perished and suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Through continuous documentation, Yad Vashem honors the lives and accomplishments of Holocaust survivors. Additionally, they develop educational programs to ensure that future generations never forget the lessons of the Holocaust.

This past year, thanks to the help of development efforts by the American and International Societies for Yad Vashem, the museum celebrated the grand opening of the new Holocaust History Museum at Yad Vashem. This phenomenal museum uses technology and symbolism to convey the story of European Jewry during the Holocaust.

This year's Annual Tribute Dinner will honor two outstanding couples who have impacted the lives of countless individuals across generations, Mindy and Ira Mitzner of Houston, Texas, and Marilyn and Barry Rubenstein of Brookville, New York. Through their tireless efforts, these couples have made remembering the Holocaust a sacred legacy. Their lives reflect the understanding that our society must heal and remember in order to prevent this catastrophe from repeating itself.

I applaud the American and International Societies for Yad Vashem for their vital work in honoring the memory and legacy of Holocaust victims and survivors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2669.

This is really amazing, and I guess, you know, it would not be a surprise. It was an excellent suggestion on your part, Mr. Ryan; and we, I think, are trying to make our generational working group here innovative. I mean, I think we all, as individual Members of Congress basically make our highest priority the ability and desire for us to interact directly with our constituents. And the one place that we are generally not able to do that is on the floor when we are here debating the very issues that impact everyone in this country.

We can interact fairly well with constituents in committee because they can obviously testify in front of us in committee meetings. We obviously interact with constituents in our offices. But once we are here, this is a very insular environment. This opportunity tonight for us to kick this off, 30-something Live, and interact with people who will be submitting questions to us online will be historic and exciting.

Maybe we need a glossary for Mr. Delahunt.

The only difference in your definition of 30- something is maybe it is 30-something by decade.

And we are 30-something by year.

This is not the last time we are going to do this. We are kicking this effort off. So even if we do not get to all the questions tonight, which with over 400 we obviously will not be able to in the 60 minutes, we will be doing this again.

Both of my colleagues are absolutely right. The President has some nerve questioning our patriotism. That is what America is all about. I happen to be in the middle of reading Washington's biography. The Founding Fathers created this country so that there could be an opportunity for a vocal minority to express dissent. The farthest thing from their mind when they created this country was that opposition would be unpatriotic. Of course it is certainly understandable given the climate that the Republican leadership has created here where they do not allow or expect either members of their own party to disagree with them and certainly have structured the rules so that it is virtually impossible for us to voice disagreement or make a significant impact on the process once the process reaches here. Mr. Speaker, the people that have communicated with us have caused me to ask this question. Not only has the President called into question the patriotism of those of us who have questioned why we are still there and when are we going to have a plan to withdraw, but he has also implied that Democrats who have objected to the way we got into this war and the misrepresentation or misallocation of the facts that led us into this war, he has also suggested that those same Democrats saw the same intelligence that the President did. No, they did not. That is factually inaccurate.

The bottom line is that every morning the President gets an intelligence document that we are not privy to. He gets massive amounts of intelligence that they do not widely distribute, even though we have security clearance, widely distribute to Members of Congress. So they were able to be, one would think, Mr. Speaker, selective in what they released to the Members of Congress when we were in the throes of making the decision about whether or not to support, and I was not here at that time, but when those of you that were here were in the throes of deciding whether to support the war.

I just want to read this question that brought this all to mind. You have Mr. Lehman from Goshen, Indiana, who said to us, Since the Iraq war and tax breaks for the wealthy have devastated our Federal budget, why can't the Democrats invoke procedures to semi-close down Congress as this is an emergency situation which is affecting our national economy when the money could be better spent on domestic social programs including hurricane relief. Cut and strut.

That is a really good point. If the American people are asking what are we doing in Iraq when we have so many needs here, when we have literally hundreds of thousands of people in our gulf coast twisting in the wind literally because we cannot get them the assistance they need, yet we are sending millions of dollars, billions of dollars as the gentleman from Ohio has detailed in the charts we have here in the last few weeks that we have been talking about this, the administration has literally chosen sending assistance, infrastructure rebuilding assistance, to the Iraqi people and we are not able to provide that for our own people. All the

while, today, they may still be in the committee meeting now, our own Ways and Means Committee is marking up the tax reconciliation bill, $70 billion in tax reconciliation to supposedly balance out the budget deficit, the budget deficit reduction act which is a total misnomer that they could not pass last week. The reason that they could not pass it and the reason that it makes no sense is because if you are passing $70 billion in tax cuts and $50 billion in spending cuts, that still leaves $20 billion. That is the kind of thing that the people who are communicating with us are asking, just like Mr. Lehman from Indiana.

In that vein, we actually have an e-mail from one of the folks out there in blogger land who wants us to talk about and ask the question, Mr. Speaker, are the rules that have been enacted for the operation of our U.S. House of Representatives constitutional? And if not, what is the remedy for that? There is a person from Vermont. Can a lawsuit be brought about legal or unconstitutional House rules?

In other words, all Americans must have representation in their government, Mr. Speaker; and if Democrats are ignored because of House rules, not allowed hearings like the ones you are talking about, not allowed to offer an amendment on the House floor to legislation when we are duly elected in the same way, putting our pant legs on one at a time just like they do, or a skirt, like I do on occasion, because of House rules that give full power to a majority political party, half the country does not have representation in the day-to-day business of our own government.

That is the bottom line. We are shut down. And this is not about whining. This is not about, gee, we cannot get in our say. This is about that we were duly elected just like every one of the other 434 Members of this body, and it is not like that in the U.S. Senate. In the U.S. Senate, the minority is treated with respect. It does not always go their way, but they can at least make an impact. It is truly enough.

What is more unfortunate is how the Republican leadership in this Chamber misrepresents how the process works here, as if we are allowed to call hearings whenever we want to or have subpoena power in the Katrina committee that was created a few weeks ago. They really, consistently, at least since I have been here from the beginning of this year, if you recall during the Schiavo case, facts were not relevant. They just made it up if it suited their argument.

And they protect themselves with the rules. They hide behind the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I heard some of our friends on the other side of the aisle taking issue or calling into question what we have been saying about what they would propose to do to our Nation's veterans. I did not notice them holding up anything in black and white that disproves what we are saying.

I did not notice.

And their answer to the deficit that they have ballooned is to not just hurt veterans, but to hurt people just when they are on the cusp of being able to make a change and turn the corner in their life. There are $844 million in food stamp cuts in this bill.

Now, I have heard some of our friends on the Republican side of the aisle argue that there is fraud in the food stamp program and that there are people who are collecting food stamps that do not deserve it or maybe we do not have as many people who need food stamps these days. Well, today, not yesterday, not 5 months ago, not a year ago, today, this is a picture of a line of 25,000 people, 25,000 people in Broward County where I am from, who lined up as early as 3:00 in the morning to sign up for food stamps following Hurricane Wilma.

Now, I checked to make sure that I was being accurate when I came down here tonight. This food stamp application process is through the regular food stamp program, nothing special, no special appropriations, nothing from FEMA. This is 25,000 people, most of whom have never before applied for public assistance.

Now, if the Republicans are going to say that there are not people in need and that it is more important to cut taxes for the wealthy then to provide for the people who are standing in this line, who have already been through so much, then really I guess we are serving with many who are serving in this Chamber without conscience.

Let us just make sure people understand and the Speaker understands that we are not talking about made-up numbers here that we are just pulling out of thin air.

In the Washington Post last Thursday, another third-party validator, they describe the cuts in this bill and they go on to say, The food stamp cuts in the House measure would knock nearly 300,000 people off nutritional assistance programs, including 70,000 legal immigrants, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which is the office that we get our economic facts from.

Those immigrants would lose their benefits because the House measure would require legal immigrants to live in the United States for 7 years before becoming eligible for receiving food stamps. About 40,000 children would lose eligibility for free or reduced-price lunches, the CBO estimated. The food stamp cuts, if approved, will especially affect 11 States, including Maryland, that use the changes in the food stamp law, approved with the President's support in 2002, to expand eligibility and to simplify the application process.

Under the House measure that we will consider tomorrow, eligibility for food stamps would be tightened to exclude some recipients, get this, who qualify for nutritional support simply because they qualify for other antipoverty programs funded by the Federal welfare program known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, not eliminate fraud, not eliminate people who are not supposed to be getting food stamps, but eliminate people who already qualify because they qualify for other poverty programs.

And then today we have 25,000 more people in one county applying for the same program that we are going to cut 300,000 from tomorrow if this bill passes.

Where is outrage? Where is the conscience? I want to know how our colleagues are going to sleep tonight knowing that they have to cast this vote tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what that is called? That is called taking from the needy and giving to the greedy.

But do not worry because last week President Bush rode in on his white steed to the rescue of the American people and addressed the culture of corruption and cronyism and lack of competence that is going on and emanating from the White House.

He required all of the White House staff to take an ethics refresher course this week.

Oh, yes, do not worry. White House staff attendance is mandatory for anyone holding any level of security clearance.

No. This is a 4-hour class that actually I think it is being given this week by White House counsel Harriet Miers' office, who, of course, we know has been doing such a bang-up job at guiding the White House through their ethical morass.

Will the gentleman yield?

Deputy chief of staff.

He has multiple titles, actually. I know that he has more than just that one title. And the President has not dismissed him or asked him to step aside.

You know, let us just give them the benefit of doubt. Let us say we did not think the President should fire him. We do, but let us say, why has the President not suspended him at least until he called upon even the White House council to do an internal investigation? They are really good at copping to internal investigations and not allowing independent investigations of wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing. But he has not even suggested that his duties should be suspended so that you can clear the cloud away.

One hundred thirty years.

No outrage, no floor speeches, no 1-minutes, no 5-minutes.

Does the gentleman remember when we were growing up, it seemed like any time you turned on C-SPAN or there was a shot of the Congress doing something, when we were kids, it was a shot of the Congress in a hearing, the Iran Contra hearings or some kind of investigatory hearing that would immediately be called. The ink on the accusation would not be dry before congressional hearings were called to investigate.

Am I missing something? Maybe I am not in the loop.

While you are on the rule, about an hour ago, the Rules Committee reported a rule which are the directions that are given to the House for legislation that we consider each day. The Rules Committee gives us the parameters under which we can operate and act on each bill.

So, the rule for tomorrow that has come out on a party-line vote for this budget reconciliation bill tomorrow, is called a closed rule. You may be asking, well, what is a closed rule, what does that mean? A lot of the terms we use in Washington are cryptic.

A closed rule means that no one can offer any amendments to this bill. We will have, using the term that people have heard so often, an up-or-down vote on this budget reconciliation bill.

A short time ago, I recall that one of the distinguished members of the Rules Committee was discussing with us how open the process is and how much input we as Democrats in the minority party have had in the process and how many amendments we have been able to get in and have considered.

This document, this bill, that we are considering tomorrow is perhaps the most important piece of legislation which will have the most far- reaching impact of almost anything that we are going to consider in this Congress: $844 million in food stamps, eliminating 300,000 people off of food stamp rolls,

cutting child care, $17.5 billion in financial assistance to college students. The list goes on and on, and the Republican leadership, because we have got to call it like it is, created a closed rule so that we cannot offer any changes to that bill tomorrow, none. That is the democracy.

Could I ask a question?

I think it is always helpful for us to provide information to people who do not really know much about this process here. It is kind of arcane. Maybe you could help describe for people who are wondering about the process, we have to name each piece of legislation, so that it is descriptive for the membership.

Ideally, it is actually supposed to define what we are doing.

Yes, of course. The name of this legislation is the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. I am a freshman and I do not know the rules in that book as well as the two of you or as well as some of my senior colleagues. So I wonder if there is anything in the book, the rules book, that says you cannot be inaccurate or misleading.

Actually has to reduce the deficit.

Why would you want to do that?

What does that mean?

Without a vote?

Now, is that an opportunity for us to amend the bill or change it?

What does that let us do?

Can I ask you another question on that point. In the time that you have been

here, which is 3 years now, has a motion to recommit ever passed out of the House of Representatives since you have been here?

So they never send a bill back to committee even if something may be wrong with it?

I want to elaborate on what my colleague is saying, because some people might think that this is unusual and that it is a rare occurrence that they would close a bill and not allow us to offer any amendments. This is just my first year, but I wanted to just check on what the Republican leadership's track record is in terms of allowing us the input that they say they so desperately want us to provide.

There have been about 85 bills, as of last Thursday, which was November 3, 85 bills that we have considered on this floor that were amendable. There are lots of bills we consider that are under what is called the suspension calendar, and we vote those up or down. Those are the noncontroversial bills. But 85 bills.

Of the 85 bills that were potentially amendable, 38 of them were given restrictive rules where there were severe limitations on the amendments that were allowed to be offered. Severe. Fifteen of those bills were closed, like the one that we are considering tomorrow, meaning no additional amendments were allowed. No amendments at all were allowed. Plus three additional closed rules that were included in another bill.

Now, there have been, of the 85, 12 open rules, meaning anyone can offer an amendment, but 11 of those were appropriations bills, spending bills, which we always are allowed to offer amendments to.

So what it boils down to, and 10 were conference reports and 10 were procedural. But what that boils down to is that since I was elected and have served in Congress 11 months, we have had one bill, one substantive bill, that had an open rule, one where we could offer any idea we wanted.

Now, my colleague from Florida talked earlier about how we all put our pant legs on one at a time. And I wear pants and sometimes I wear skirts, and sometimes I wear pajamas. I might be bringing those tomorrow because we are not sure how long we are going to be here and how long they are going to hold that vote open until they get their way. But we were also all elected by the same number of people, or we certainly represent the same number of people, the same 633,000 people. But we are not all treated equally in this Chamber, because on our side of the aisle we are not allowed to provide the input that they say they want us to provide.

I actually just want to, if you do not mind, tell a little story, because we should demonstrate what is going on here in this bill tomorrow. Gene Sperling, who was at one time President Clinton's top economic adviser, he compared this budget and the cutting in the budget to cutting only peanut butter. I will share this story with you. Imagine the following:

The father of a financially stretched family decides to live it up. He leases three fully loaded Hummer H1s for the bargain price of $9,750 a month, almost $10,000. As the family's financial situation deteriorates, the father calls the family together for a belt- tightening discussion. He holds up a jar of Whole Foods chunky peanut butter and says, Do you realize we are spending $4.49 on this? We could be saving $2.04 if we bought Skippy Peanut Butter for only $2.45.

His teenage son responds, like, Dad, man, why are you busting on us about two bucks on peanut butter when you are spending like almost $10,000 a month on cars?

Then the father responds, Do not change the subject. We are talking about peanut butter.

Well, that is essentially what the leadership is saying by giving tax cuts to millionaires and the greedy, their cronies, and cutting programs for veterans, children, and the poor who are the needy. They are basically saying, We need to talk about the peanut butter, that is all that matters to us.

In some of the time we have left, we should let people know just exactly what the conscience vote is tomorrow, so that people know when we all go to sleep tonight just who is going to be able to wake up and look at themselves in the mirror and hold their head up high. We are being asked tomorrow to vote to cut $844 million from food stamps. They say there is fraud in the food stamp program and that we need to reduce waste.

Well, I held up this picture earlier tonight, and I will hold it up again, because I think it is very descriptive. There is the picture of the 25,000 people who lined up in Broward County today to apply for food stamps after getting hit by Hurricane Wilma. They started lining up at 3 a.m. They did not line up for emergency funding.

These are new people. The vast majority of

people in this line were applying for the first time.

And this does not come from FEMA money. This is not the emergency funding. This comes right out of the food stamp program.

We have cuts in child care. We have cuts that would prevent us from ensuring that deadbeat dads are pursued. There is a $4.9 billion cut from child support programs. As a result, parents will receive $7.1 billion, as the chart points out, less in child support over 5 years and $21.3 billion less over 10 years.

There is a $577 million cut from foster care. Now, I know there are colleagues of mine on the other side of the aisle who are just bristling at that possibility. They do not want to make it so that families cannot take children in.

This is real.

They will not have a choice.

I thank my colleague. And there is good news in all of this sadness. And that is the best word I can apply to this piece of garbage that we are going to consider tomorrow. There is good news, because the voters get it. They know this country should be turned around and moved in a new direction, and they sent a very strong message yesterday.

We had a number of elections across this country yesterday, and in every single one that rose and fell on issues like these, who won? The Democrats won. We will have a Democratic governor of Virginia, we will have a Democratic governor of New Jersey. All eight initiatives in California that would have abused the process, abused democracy, that would have harmed people had they passed in California, which were initiated by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, were repudiated by the voters of California. All eight were defeated.

So it is very clear that the American people are rejecting their agenda and want to go in a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, it is again a pleasure to be here with you to talk about the issues that are important to the American people. I think the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) would both agree that this week really everything is going to come to a head. The choices that Members in this Chamber are going to be asked to make, more than any other week that I have been here, I think, are going to be emblematic of where our priorities are.

The choices that we are going to have to make on this budget reconciliation bill, which is Washington-speak for budget cuts, is going to show who is for the American people in making sure that they can sustain a decent quality of life and who is against that concept and is more supportive of making sure that the wealthy can stay wealthy. That is really what it boils down to.

Just to give you, Mr. Speaker, an idea, as well as anyone who can hear our conversation, of exactly what we are going to be asked to choose between this week, the Republican leadership and the Republican Members have been making a lot of hay about the spending cuts that they are going to ask us to vote for, that they are needed reductions because we have to do something about this deficit. And we agree. We agree that there needs to be something done about the deficit.

But the difference between our approach and the Republican approach is that our approach would actually reduce the deficit, and their approach actually adds to it. If you have a little less than $55 billion in budget cuts, yet still have 70-some-odd-billion dollars in tax cuts, the difference between that is $20 billion more added on to the deficit.

Now, I can tell you honestly that I was not very good at math when I was younger and struggled with it a little bit, but that is pretty simple math. That is not complex. It is not calculus. It does not require an advanced degree. Seventy minus 50 is 20. And it is not a negative number. It is a positive number added on to the deficit.

Let us demonstrate that while we are still providing $70 billion to tax cuts for the wealthy we are cutting the following things: for the sake of more tax cuts in this budget reconciliation bill, students can expect to pay as much as $5,800 more for college. For the sake of more tax cuts, 300,000 of America's neediest will be left without food stamps. For the sake of more tax cuts, we will fail in our obligation to bring hurricane victims lasting relief. For the sake of more tax cuts, $10 billion, $10 billion with a B, will be slashed from Medicaid. One in four children in America get their health care from Medicaid.

For the sake of more tax cuts, we will ensure that the deficit remains high and the burden of creating more debt and paying that debt by our selfishness in choosing to help the wealthy at the expense of the people who are the most in need and the people who are just working every day to make ends meet, that is the debt we are passing on to our children and our children's children. And it is just mind-boggling to me. I know I am a freshman. The two gentlemen have been here longer than me. Maybe I am naive. Maybe the gentleman can provide some clarity because to me it is simple math.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

The gentleman's bringing up faith as it relates to this budget document is incredibly important, because our friends on the other side of the aisle throw around family values as a term and as part of their make-up and try to contrast us, as if that is not part of ours.

Let us just look at what the faith community is saying about this budget, and what they have been saying about this budget. This week, this past week, we had a number of members of the organized religious community come to Washington and urge the Republican leadership not to pursue this budget reconciliation document.

You had Reverend Jim Wallis, the founder of Sojourners and Convener of Call to Renewal. You had Rabbi David Saperstein, who is the director of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism. You had Reverend Elenora Giddings Ivory, who is the Director of the Washington Office of the Presbyterian Church.

What Reverend Ivory said when she was here, she said, ``I am here today to express concern for the Federal budget reconciliation packages under consideration in the House and the Senate. Our Nation is about to balance its budget on the backs of the poor. Is that a moral thing to do? The Federal budget is a reflection of what we see as important and primary. Does the spending package under consideration reflect a caring and a compassionate society? Does it reflect you as a citizen of faith?''

I think that each of us, if we ask and look inside our own hearts, Republicans and Democrats alike, would have to answer each of those questions, absolutely not.

If the gentleman will yield, there is a way we can make changes which take us in a new direction: it is election day. We do not have to continue down this road. We do not have to continue to prop up and add to the bottom line of the wealthy. We can send the Republican leadership home, and we can start today.

What I think we would all like to see happen in the next couple of hours in Virginia, in Ohio, in New Jersey, in New York, in California, and anywhere else there is an election of significance, of course, all elections are significant, but where the more significant offices and contests are being held, we would like to urge all voters to go out to the polls tonight in those communities.

And just to help people know, there is still time left in Virginia. The polls close at 7 p.m. So there is about 45 minutes left. In Ohio, and these are all local times, in Ohio, the polls close at 7:30. In New Jersey, the polls close at 8:00 p.m. In New York, the polls close at 9 p.m. And in California, the polls close at 8 p.m. So we would urge all people who have an opportunity to make change in their State to cast their ballots today on election day. Make sure you get to your polling place and cast your vote to move this country in a new direction so we can continue to fight to make these changes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just to transition our conversation from the tax cuts to the whole issue of where we are going in terms of the budget cuts, in addition to cuts that affect children, in addition to child support payments, in addition to Medicaid cuts, this budget will do more damage than we have ever done to people who are trying to expand their horizons and get access to higher education. What is unbelievable about these budget cuts is that in terms of higher education, this is the most significant cut in history being made in this budget document to financial aid than we have ever seen before.

Mr. Speaker, we are joined tonight by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Missouri (Mr. Carnahan), and he has been a champion on this issue in trying to raise people's awareness of just exactly what this Republican budget document would do to people who are struggling to get access to higher education. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

We actually have a chart that outlines some of the things my colleague is about to go over so we can make sure that people have it very clearly in front of them

If my colleague wishes to go over the details he was beginning to talk about on the bottom of the chart.

What we try to do in this 30-something time, we do a lot of talking, but we also want to show people with third- party validators and with the specifics blown up in poster-size form so that they have it both in graphical depiction as well as in description from us individually. So that was just showing my colleague that while he goes through just exactly what these cuts in student aid do, we have that up for the folks at home.

Mr. Speaker, all of what we are saying here tonight has caused me to look at the view of our generation and how we feel about the future and the direction that this leadership, this Republican leadership, is taking this country.

We did a little research in my office. President John F. Kennedy once implored Americans to ask not what their country could do for them, but what they could do for their country. Another important question that all of these issues raises is how all of this budget cutting and pulling the rug out from under college students' future leaves them feeling in terms of public service and what their government can do for people and whether they would want to be a part of that.

So we found some research that showed just exactly how our generation feels about this. A 2004 Hart Research Study for the Council of Excellence in Government found that 34 percent of young Americans said the idea of a government service career did not appeal to them.

What does that say about the confidence that this leadership is inspiring in our generation? Mr. Speaker, that is 34 percent. That is a huge number. It means they have no confidence in government's ability to improve people's lives.

After 9/11, we were starting to change those statistics. You saw after 9/11 the incredible response of first responders and of volunteers. All of our hearts in America swelled after the response from 9/11. The polling that was done then showed that young people felt that the response to 9/11 made them more likely to pursue careers in government and the public sector. But recent events, the culture of corruption, cronyism, the lack of competence that has been evident since the inception of this administration has absolutely, in 3 years from 9/11, 2001, to 2004, totally turned that belief in government's ability to improve our lives on its head.

Just by way of example, some things that most likely did cause that, let us go under the category of corruption. When young people see politicians, leaders of our Nation, deliberately deceiving the American people, an example would be the recent indictment of Mr. Libby and the deceptive actions of Mr. Rove. You have people who spend their lives serving their country; and what happens, people in the administration, a person for the first time indicted in 130 years that served in the White House, people in the administration repay them that service by revealing a CIA's agent covert status, jeopardizing the lives of countless numbers

of government employees who are trying to do good work on behalf of the United States of America.

Example number two of corruption: We went to Iraq under questionable circumstances, under false pretenses, no question about it. We send American men and women into the battlefield, and more than 2,000 have given their lives. If you ask the average person, particularly in our generation, if they know for what those lives were given, I do not think that they feel confident that they would give an answer that anyone would be happy about.

Let us look at the cronyism that might have caused this shift in confidence in our generation. This generation of young people is extremely independent. They have a spirit of self-determination. They are less likely to identify with a political party. Most young people today are identifying themselves as Independents. They see political appointments based on friendships. The appointment of Michael Brown, ``Brownie,'' because he was a college roommate with someone in the administration, with a friend of the President, being put in charge of one of the most important agencies in the country in terms of making sure that people's lives are protected as a disaster approaches and we can help them afterwards, we put someone in charge of that agency whose sum total of his experience was he was president of the Arabian Horse Association.

The bottom line is we can do better. Together we can lock arms. Our generation can say to the generation in front of us that has been leading this country, give us the baton. It is our turn. We are not going there any more. We want to turn this country around. We want to make sure our children have health care, that mothers and fathers when their kids get sick do not have to wait until their kid is so sick they have to take them to the emergency room for their health care.

We do not want to cut the budget for abused and neglected children. We are going to continue to pursue deadbeat dads. State legislators have fought tooth and nail to ensure that we can continue to go after deadbeat dads; yet in this budget we will consider this week, that opportunity would be lost. We would be preventing that opportunity. The list goes on and on. It adds insult to injury. It cuts the school lunch program, which is a program that makes it so that some kids, the only place they can get a meal, a decent meal, is from that free and reduced lunch, and the Republican leadership would cut that program.

Our generation can take the country in a new direction, and we are ready to.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a crisis in South Florida.

The third most destructive hurricane ever to hit this country struck my congressional district just over 2 weeks ago. Thousands of people are still without power, thousands still have holes in their roofs that threaten to condemn their houses with every new rain.

Thousands have mobility issues and are without housing because they cannot get up and down the stairs to their apartment. The list goes on and on, and it is truly heart wrenching.

Just last week I was delivering meals to seniors in my district who could not get out of their third floor condominiums. Even though it was 5 days after the hurricane struck South Florida, the residents there said that no one had heard from FEMA, no one had seen FEMA and, worse yet, no one knew how to get in touch with FEMA to make sure things did not get any worse.

And why do I fear that things could get worse? Because of problems like this. This is a third floor apartment, that is the ceiling of the apartment, and as we can see, you can look right through the ceiling at the sky.

This is the woman's master bedroom and literally during the storm, 1 minute after she walked out of that master bedroom the ceiling came down on her bed. The roof caved in. A minute earlier and it would have caved in on her.

Obviously, this apartment is uninhabitable. However, this is a three- story building. If we delay the disaster response, if we do not get FEMA tarp distribution centers set up right away, if we wait weeks before we deliver individual assistance, then not only are we saying to the woman that lived in this unit, tough it out, you are on our your own for now, but we are also making the problem worse because there are two floors below this apartment unit.

If it rains through this massive hole in the ceiling in this woman's apartment, then it will leak down onto the apartments on the second floor and possibly weaken the structure, leading to the evacuation of everyone in that part of building. And that is beginning to happen; this is what is happening. Our ineffective response is not only irresponsible, but it also costs the taxpayers more money than necessary.

Now, I have been talking about a natural disaster, which is Hurricane Wilma. But I also want to talk a minute about a man-made disaster that is coming, something that will victimize once again the victims of Hurricane Wilma, Katrina and Rita. I am talking about the Draconian budget cuts proposed by the Republican leadership in their so-called budget reconciliation package.

Last week, the papers in South Florida blared the news that over 5,000 people's homes had been condemned, much of it affordable housing. In Broward County the median price of a home is $348,000, making many homes and even rental apartments out of reach for thousands of south Floridians.

While the loss of 5,000 homes damaged by Hurricane Wilma is terrible, I would like to point out that the budget reconciliation package endorsed by the Republican leadership eliminates affordable housing vouchers for 3,500 people in Florida alone.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, while Hurricane Wilma made 5,000 Florida families homeless last week, the Republican leadership is proposing cuts that would make 3,500 more Florida families homeless. So first we get hit by Katrina, then we get hit by Wilma and either this week or next the American people will get hit by Hurricane Republican.

Hurricanes are natural disasters, Mr. Speaker. What we will be debating in the House this week or next is a man-made disaster, a man- made disaster that not only would leave 3,500 Florida families homeless through cuts to Section 8 housing vouchers, but also, incredibly, would cut $58.9 million in elementary and secondary education funds for Florida students, $4.9 million in cuts for supplemental nutrition programs for women infants and children, $25.1 million in cuts for children and families.

These are funds that provide for the Head Start program and help abused and neglected children. Cutting funds for abused and neglected children, what are we coming to here?

I urge my colleagues to vote against a man-made disaster that will originate from this body this week and sweep across the country, displacing thousands of people nationwide. I urge them to vote against the Republican budget reconciliation package.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to reflect on the life and contributions of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was tragically assassinated 10 years ago. Yitzhak Rabin dedicated his entire life to the cause of peace and security for Israel. He fought tirelessly for the right of all Israelis to live normal lives without fear of attack, to dine with friends, to shop, and to send their children to school on buses. Yitzhak Rabin was many things, a soldier, an Ambassador, a Knesset Member, a Prime Minsiter, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate. He is remembered best as a peacemaker who changed the course of history.

I In addition to valiantly serving Israel's armed forces for 27 years, including during the War of Independence, the Suez War, and the Six-Day War as Chief of Staff, Yitzhak Rabin is responsible for leading Israel through many historic times. In 1975 he signed the interim agreement with Egypt which laid the groundwork for peace between Israel and Egypt. In 1976, Yitzhak Rabin ordered the successful liberation of the hijacked Air France flight, known as Operation Entebbe. And in 1994 Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein of Jordan signed a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. Most notably, Yitzhak Rabin's legacy includes the signing of the Declaration of Principles framework agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and the famous handshake with the late PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat on the White House lawn.

Upon the signing of the Declaration of Principles on September 13, 1993, Yitzhak Rabin said to the Palestinians, ``We say to you today in a loud and clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough. We harbor no hatred toward you. We have no desire for revenge. We, like you, are people who want to build a home, plant a tree, love, live side by side with you--in dignity, empathy, as human beings, as free men . . .''

Clearly, this was a man who envisioned a free, secure, and democratic Jewish state at peace with all its neighbors. Yitzhak Rabin's message resounded across Israel, and it is no wonder that on November 4, 1995, he attended and spoke at a peace rally in Tel Aviv amidst tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters with banners proclaiming ``Yes to peace--no to violence.'' In his final address at the peace rally Yitzhak Rabin stated, ``I have always believed that the majority of the people want peace, are prepared to take risks for peace,'' and ``Peace is what the Jewish People aspire to, a true aspiration.'' Yitzhak Rabin was fatally shot by a Jewish student as he left the rally.

On the 10th anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin's death, I wish to express the deepest condolences of the American people to the family of Yitzhak Rabin and to all the people of Israel for the loss of this great leader. Additionally, we must honor his life and his work by continuing the pursuit of peace in the Middle East.

The United States and Israel share a special bond, one that Yitzhak Rabin helped to establish during his time as Ambassador to the U.S. This bond is steadfast and represents the abundance of shared values and common goals of our two societies. I am proud to be part of the U.S. Congress, a body which stands by Israel when Israel needs us. Just last week, the House of Representatives voted to pass the Conference Report of the Fiscal Year 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act which includes $2.3 billion in military assistance and $240 million in economic assistance to Israel. Without a doubt, Yitzhak Rabin's legacy of bringing the U.S. and Israel closer together lives on.

Ten years after Yitzhak Rabin's tragic death, let us renew our commitment to fostering peace in the Middle East. We must encourage efforts that support the peacemakers of this world and penalize those who would murder innocents. Yitzhak Rabin has left a wonderful legacy over his long and distinguished career of service, and it is with the utmost respect and admiration that I support the people of Israel in their quest for peace.

If the gentleman will yield, I think we should expand this conversation beyond just what this budget reconciliation, budget cut proposal that we will consider this week means. Because what was initially rolled out by the Republican Study Committee after Katrina was this chart that you have right here. I think it would be helpful for us to go through just exactly what the true intentions are of the Republican Caucus. How many Republican members are there in the caucus?

So 228 members of their caucus and more than 100 of those members, it is my understanding, are members of the Republican Study Committee. So the vast majority of the Republican Caucus subscribes to this proposal that the Republican Study Committee put forward which is really what they would do if they could get their moderate Republicans who are not members of the study committee to swallow it. And because they know that they are in a precarious situation in their own elections in many instances, they are the ones that have been waffling on the fence here.

Let us go through what the Republicans would do if they had their way. They would delay the Medicare prescription drug bill for 1 year which the gentleman from Ohio already mentioned. They would reduce Medicaid administrative spending. But they would go further than that. They would increase the allowable copays in Medicaid. Let us describe what that means. Fully one in four children in the United States of America today get their health care from Medicaid. Often I know when people think of Medicaid, they think of it as really just purely a health care system that provides health care access to the poor. But if one in four children are getting their health care from Medicaid, that means you have that many children living in poverty in the United States of America. What this proposal would do by increasing the copays is requiring poor children's families to come more out of pocket to pay for their health care.

If that were not bad enough, if making poor children's families pull more money out of their pocket to pay for their health care were not bad enough, the Republican Study Committee, in fact, more than that, this budget cut proposal that we are going to consider this week would allow increases in premiums for the first time and it would also let health care providers, physicians and other health care providers that are Medicaid providers, refuse care if a beneficiary cannot afford the copayment. Right now they are not able to refuse that care. There is a change in this proposal that would allow people who provide health care to Medicaid recipients to refuse care if they do not have the money to pull out of their pocket. Often we hear the argument made about the skyrocketing costs of Medicaid, the greater percentage that Medicaid has taken of the

Federal budget and of State budgets. While that may be true, what the gentleman from Ohio has just outlined is absolutely accurate. These cuts, which are supposed to be representative of savings, there is not going to be savings. It is just going to be more cost shifting of health care costs. Because these people who are on Medicaid now, they have to get their health care from somewhere. Most good parents, any good parent is not going to let their child suffer. What they do is instead of being able to take their children to the doctor for well baby visits and well child visits and make sure that the health care is preventive as opposed to reactionary and sickness and disease based, they have to wait till their child is sick enough to take to the emergency room.

I was walking door to door when I first ran for the State legislature and knocked on the door of a younger woman, it turned out. Usually when I was knocking door to door, it was senior citizens who took a long time to get to the door. But this woman, I was surprised when she answered the door, was young. Her foot was swollen to a grotesque proportion. I could not help but ask her what happened. She said I actually had caught her just as she was about to go out the door to the emergency room because she did not have health insurance and she was not able to go to the doctor when the problem on her foot was small, she had to wait till it was so infected that she had to go to the emergency room. Of course she had no health insurance and she did not qualify for Medicaid in this instance. So now what we should do is talk about the gap between people who qualify for Medicaid and people who have health insurance. There are a vast amount of people in the middle who fall through the crack.

Loss of productivity by her employer. Just think about the impact of people who cannot go to work when they are sick.

Think about the skyrocketing costs of health care and this administration. Ask yourself, Madam Speaker, ask yourself the last time you heard President Bush say anything about health care. I have not heard him say a word about health care. I have not heard him speak out against Medicaid cuts. I have not heard him speak in favor of helping poor children and their families afford health care. Where is the outrage?

That might be a little bit of Washington- speak. I think people might get the letters confused. What is Medicare Part B?

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman recalls a few months ago when we were talking about Social Security privatization and the impact that that would have on our seniors, imagine if that proposal had gone through and, hopefully, we are going to continue to be able to keep that off the table. But when we were on the floor during the 30-Something Working Group, my colleagues will recall that one of the things that we talked about so often was that we have so many of our senior citizens who are on fixed incomes, whose Social Security is their only source of survival.

Now, if what the Republican Study Committee would like to see happen happens, where they increase Medicare Part B premiums, which is out-of- pocket money that these seniors have to pay, and one day soon we privatize Social Security, how are these people going to be able to afford to live?

Thank you. And you know it is totally understandable why you are emotional about it and why we are all emotional about it. We are all bristling with indignation here because to add insult to injury, the nightmare scenario you are describing for veterans if this budget reconciliation bill actually becomes a reality is just the tip of iceberg. Just a few months ago, I mean, I am a freshman. I just got here. And there are a lot of things that have shocked me, not the least of which is what you referred to a little while ago which is that we almost never meet in a bipartisan fashion. The idea of actually seeing Members from the other side of the aisle sit down at a meeting like you just described, at the beginning of this year, you know, to me would have been a usual matter, like we did in the legislature, coming together on most things and arguing about only the most basic of Republican and Democratic differences.

Here it is like they think we do not take showers or something. I am not

really certain why it is that they will not actually sit down with us and try to work things out. But what was more startling just a couple of months later was that, you know, we have talked about the number of Cs that apply to their ability to govern. There is corruption, there is the cronyism, and then there is the lack of competence. I mean, I could not believe that in June we had to actually appropriate $1.5 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs because there was a shortfall in their budget that they were denying for months. Months. We kept insisting there was a shortfall. Veterans were having to wait months and months for health care. The 6-month wait for access to health care at the VA was a true reality.

And we were saying there is something wrong here. The American Legion was saying something was wrong here. And finally they owned up and realized oh, yeah, we do have a shortfall and we are going to need, we had to go and pass an emergency appropriations bill to get them the rest of the money they need.

You know, we talk about the third-party validators here. Now there is a proposal to cut $600 million out of this budget in veterans health care, which would be enough funds to care for nearly 100,000 veterans. The American Legion, this is this evening's third-party validator for me on veterans, expressed concern that that cut would mean rationing of care, hiring freezes of medical personnel, delaying repairs on facilities, growing backlogs of medical equipment, and many other fiscal-based constraints. And that was a letter that they wrote on October 17.

Yes, I would be happy to.

I think that would be Veterans Day, and that is Friday.

Gall is a soft word, the softest word you could use. I really want to go ahead and transition to Mr. Delahunt, who is going to go through some more of this.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) was referring to the guts that they lack. It has been clear to me, and increasingly clear as the months go by, that they do not have the guts or the ability in their constitutional makeup, like the gentleman said, continuing with the C-word theme, it is their culture of cronyism that does not allow them. Their culture that propels them to take care of the people at the top and only those at the top.

So they do not have the ability to comprehend at least not the way I perceive it, that they are doing the wrong thing.

The culture of corruption and cronyism just continues, and although it is somewhat off topic, I think it is important because the last few times we have been here we have been talking about just their general lack of ethics and their commitment to taking care of their cronies as opposed to the American people.

We have been calling on the floor of this House for the President to fire Karl Rove, to at least ask him to step down, to eliminate the weight that is standing on his chest and the chests of the American people and our ability to actually move forward.

Do you know what his response was to calls across the country to get rid of Karl Rove? He ordered his staff in the White House to take an ethics course this week. That is what he has asked them to do. Right there in black and white, the Associated Press reported it. His response to this entire mess is that his White House staff should take an ethics class.

Can I just tell you, it gets worse. It is not just the fact that they are responding to this entire fiasco, ethical conflict, with ethics classes for the White House staff. Do you know who is giving the classes? The White House counsel's office, Harriet Miers' office. That is part of their pattern. It is not like they decided they should go somewhere outside the White House, because clearly the White House has not been emblematic of an ethical place where you could actually learn ethics from someone inside the White House. You would think they would have gone outside the White House, but they do not believe in independence.

We asked them to establish an independent Katrina commission. No. Their answer was to do it internally and create a special committee here that is lopsided, 11 Republicans and right now no Democrats because we refuse to serve on a committee that is not going to be fair and objective and really get to the bottom of it.

The bottom line, the reason I brought this up is because your point is from the top to the bottom, the culture of corruption and cronyism and incompetence just runs right through. There is not any light at the end of the tunnel, and it gets worse with every page you turn in this administration.

Just one quick statement. We want to remind everyone that tomorrow is election day in many places, Virginia, California, New York, New Jersey. We want to urge our generation to come out in the record numbers that they came out during the 2004 elections.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon all across south Florida, there are thousands of people whose homes have been condemned. They have been condemned following a category 3 hurricane called Hurricane Wilma.

Subsequently in the last few days, it has been pouring rain. I went door to door in my district over the weekend and met hundreds of men and women in their 80s and 90s stuck in their apartments with no power. At one point, I came upon a 93-year-old women in her kitchen with her 90-year-old next-door neighbor who were looking with despair at an MRE, trying to figure out how to get it open, put it together, and get it heating so that they could have the first hot food, something resembling hot food, that they had had in 5 days.

I literally had to help them with the print on the instructions that was this big, try to figure out how to put that meal together without burning themselves, because as soon as you put the water in the meal, it starts to immediately heat up.

This was not an isolated incident. In the 2 days after that, those women and the other senior citizens that I represent in the Sunrise Lakes Condominium were told that they needed to leave their apartments because after the rain, the leaking through their condominium roof was so bad that their apartments were uninhabitable.

They are now in an elementary school with no shower, with a makeshift shower that was put together with two porta-potties shoved next to each other and plastic sheeting taped up with a hose stuck over the top so that they could bathe. We are talking about men and women in their upper 80s and 90s.

Hurricane Wilma has caused tremendous suffering in south Florida, and there has not been enough national attention on the plight of my constituents and the constituents of my south Florida colleagues. We need to make sure that we are able to provide the help and assistance that they so desperately need.

There is need across this country, and next week we are going to add insult to injury and apply a manmade disaster in the form of the budget reconciliation, which is Washington-speak for budget cuts. There are going to be proposed housing cuts, Medicare cuts, food stamps, school lunches. Between Katrina and Wilma, and all of the suffering going on across this country, now is not the time to add more harm and do more damage to people who are badly in need.

Mr. Speaker, we need to do right by Americans, not pull the rug out from under them. I urge my colleagues to make sure that we provide the badly needed assistance, both to victims of Hurricane Katrina on the gulf coast and to victims of Katrina from south Florida.

One of our third-party validators.

The gentleman is absolutely right.

The gentleman talked about, he started his last couple of minutes talking about the precedent-setting activity in this administration. To take that a step further, let us talk about just how precedent setting this administration is.

They are certainly precedent setting in terms of ethical lapses, in terms of corruption and cronyism and the lack of confidence.

You have literally, with the indictment of Mr. Libby on Friday, the first White House official to be indicted in 130 years. Now, throughout our lifetime, throughout our lifetime and the lifetime of our generation here in the 30-Something Working Group, you go through probably our earliest memory of our administration would be Nixon. We were young kids during the Nixon administration, but obviously that was a pretty significant scandal.

Then you move forward. Nothing too terrible in the Ford administration. People obviously had some deep concerns or over Mr. Carter administration but nothing ethical to speak of. Obviously, with Iran Contra and the Reagan administration and the number of officials who were investigated and subpoenaed there were deep concerns, but no one indicted from the White House.

The same thing with President Clinton. No indictments of people in the White House. Definitely some questions, but now we reach the Bush administration.

Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) have the chart with him from the other day where we can put it up and show people and the Speaker what the President said during his campaign? Is that with us?

As we are getting it, if you recall, the President when he was a candidate for President talked about how he was going to transform the standards of ethics of the White House and that anyone working in his administration was going to be held to the highest of standards. That it was not just going to be whether they have actually broke the law, but the standard, and here it is.

President Bush's promise that he made as a candidate that, ``In my administration we will ask not only what is legal but what is right. Not just what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves.''

Well, I do not know, I guess prevarication is just a common practice. It is just part of their culture, part of their culture of corruption and cronyism and incompetence.

Right. I guess they believe they can say anything they want to. They do not have to follow it, and there would be no consequences. But, see, unfortunately for them, fortunately for the American people, the American people get it now. They are on to them.

Let us talk about the Washington Post poll, and I know we will have an opportunity to put this up in poster form probably next week, but one of the questions that the Washington Post/ABC News poll asked was, Please tell me whether the following statement applies to Bush or not: He is honest and trustworthy. In May of 2004, 53 percent of the American people answered that question yes and 45 percent said no. Now 40 percent think he is honest and trustworthy, and 58 percent say he is not.

I think that is in part because you can tell a lot about a person by the people they surround themselves with. Right now, let us look at who is surrounding the President of the United States or who previously was surrounding him.

You have Mr. Libby, who was indicted on Friday; and, of course, it is not confirmed unless and until he is convicted. He is not guilty of a crime yet. But he was indicted. The first official in the White House in 130 years. The President said if somebody committed a crime they will no longer work in his administration.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) I know will probably talk a few minutes about the difference in the shifting sands of the President's statements. But you have Mr. Rove who increasingly it has become clear, as clear as a bell, that he absolutely was directly involved in outing a covert CIA agent, directly involved, yet he is still in the White House with the highest security clearance, access to the most top secret information.

It is easy to see why 58 percent of the American people do not think the President is honest and trustworthy. Because if you take it a step further, the same Washington Post/ABC News poll says it has been reported that another subject of the investigation has been Karl Rove, who has been a close advisor to Bush.

The question was, Given what you have heard or read, do you think Rove did anything wrong in connection with this case or not? If yes, do you think he did something unethical but not illegal or did you think that he did something illegal? Forty-nine percent of the American people answered that question that he did something wrong for sure. Of the 49 percent, 26 percent believe he did something illegal and 23 percent think he did something unethical. Forty-nine percent of people asked believe that Karl Rove did something either illegal or unethical, and 59 percent of the people believe that he should resign from the White House.

Now, is President Bush so incompetent that he is not able to cope without Mr. Rove by his side? I do not know. Generally, I expect that, I know I surround myself with a number of competent people. You make sure you put together a team of people that does not rise and fall on one person and their knowledge and ability to assist you.

Black and white.

You mean to tell me they did not keep track? They do not have a file?

Wait. They do not keep records of previous Congresses?

Well, you bet your sweet bippy they are worried. They are worried you are asking for those documents. Because there are those on the other side of the aisle that would try to lead people to believe that we are just a bunch of malcontent Democrats who are standing on the floor complaining about something inconsequential. It is just the same old, same old. Not true.

Look at the reasoning and the motivation that was behind the outing of a covert CIA agent and of the planning and machinations that were going on in the White House to conceal and deceive the American people about what their plans were. It was all about making sure that they could have their way in going to war in Iraq. That is what it all boiled down to. And the consequences of that motivation are that now we have more than 2,000 American soldiers, men and women, who are dead, who lost their lives because this administration was hell-bent on being right, facts be damned.

It made no difference to them that all the evidence mounting showed that they were wrong, that there were no weapons of mass destruction. It was obvious there was no other reason to go into Iraq other than the President and his people decided we should, long before September 11. With all the documentation that has come out now pointing to the fact that, soon after the President was elected in 2000, it had been decided that they were going to go to war in Iraq, and what they have been doing for the last few years leading up to our entering Iraq and since then is assembling the facts around their decision.

Then subsequent to our entry into Iraq and it being discovered there were no weapons of mass destruction, in part because Joe Wilson went there to Niger and demonstrated factually that that was not the case, subsequently they have had to prevaricate. They have had to lie, because, oops, it was shown that not only were they wrong but they were deceitful.

Can you think of any more heinous an act than deceiving the American people and the world on the ultimate sacrifice that Americans are asked to make for their country?

They have no respect for the American people. They have no respect for the American people. When you are willing to do anything and say anything to have your way, regardless of the consequences, that demonstrates that you have no respect for the people that you represent, for the people that sent you to Washington to do right by them.

As elected officials, the three of us and all our colleagues here who serve in this Chamber, who have stood for office, most of us many times, what we are doing when we go and put our name on that ballot and ask people to support us, we are asking them to put their faith and their trust in us. We are telling them that we respect their opinion, that we will honor their opinion.

People in America do not expect to always agree with what we do here. I know there are people in my district who sometimes agree with me and sometimes they do not agree with me. But what they have told me, and I know each of my colleagues have heard this same thing, they have told me, Debbie, I do not always agree with you, but at least I know you are up there fighting for what you believe in. I know that you have the utmost integrity. I know I can put my faith and trust in you and that you are always going to look me in the eye and tell me exactly how things are and tell me the truth.

There is no one in America that the President can look in the eye and say he has told them the truth. Because, although he specifically has not been accused of anything illegal, he specifically has not been accused of anything illegal, you are a reflection of the people you surround yourself with. And, essentially, by allowing Karl Rove to remain in the White House and by hanging on to his staff that have been accused of unethical behavior--

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, but there are times when this is so outrageous and the conduct that is going on in this administration is so outrageous that it is difficult to contain myself and it is difficult to keep that outrage bottled up inside.

Because that is what we have been asking for weeks now. Where is the outrage? Where is the outrage from the Republican leadership in this Chamber? They certainly had plenty of outrage during the previous administration.

Asian.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, what it boils done to is that here in the House the rules hem us in, and we have to talk around a lot of what we might like to say more directly, but the American people elected us to speak truth to power. I mean, that is the bottom line. We could not have more power in the White House than there is right now, and they exercise every bit of it. They exercise every bit of it, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the plight of the people whose decisions they affect. There are so many examples of how what we are doing on this floor allows us to reveal that truth.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) has a chart right there that will help us ferret out a little bit of that truth.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from California, you are the chairman of the Rules Committee. You spend as much time restricting the Democrats' ability to offer amendments and act in a bipartisan fashion and provide input to the policies that are forced through this Congress than anyone else in this Chamber. There is absolutely no bipartisan effort made here.

Our good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), was defending the Republican leadership's position here that they are committed to cutting the deficit, and that that is, you know, a major reason why next week they are going to rain down these horrendous terrible cuts in the budget on the people who are the most in need.

I was not very good at math when I was younger. But you know, the most simplistic mathematical calculation would tell you that if they are going to cut $50 billion out of the budget next week, yet still provide $70 billion worth of tax cuts, than I guess I just wonder how they are going to reduce the deficit when you are still adding $20 billion to it.

I mean, and then that is to say nothing of the fact that when you cut the budget, you are doing nothing to reduce the deficit. That is just what is so mind-boggling.

I think if we can, I would like to translate, because words like deficit and reconciliation and big Washington-speak words like that are sometimes hard for regular folks in our districts to understand, so let us talk about what this reconciliation budget-cut document that we are going to take up next week, what it really means for people.

In the Agriculture Committee, they voted to cut $844 million from the food stamp program, which would kick 300,000 families out of the program and leave 40,000 children ineligible for free school lunches. Now, that is not whining. That means a little boy or little girl is going to have a grumbly tummy day after day.

Do you know what it feels like? I know what it feels like to not have anything in my tummy. I do not have anything in my tummy right now. But I have the ability to go out and buy a sandwich. People who get free and reduced school lunches do not have that luxury.

Where is their moral outrage? Where are their morals? That is what I want to know. I am a mom. I have three little kids. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) has two young children.

Can you imagine a circumstance where you would allow your children to go hungry if you could do something about it? Our role here as Members of Congress, we are supposed to look out for the people who cannot look out for themselves. That is what government is for.

Children are our most vulnerable citizens. Laws are written and government exists so that we can take care of kids because they cannot make their parents earn enough money to be able to pay for their breakfast and their lunch. That is where we come in. That is where government fills in for the individuals, society.

It is not fathomable to me. When I gave birth to my children, my life transformed overnight. Overnight. In a matter of hours. And my whole life became not about me any more, or my day-to-day needs; but about their day-to-day needs. That is why we are here, because we are supposed to be taking care of the needs of people who cannot do it for themselves

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson). He is incredibly eloquent, and I tremor following that eloquence.

I want to just follow up with some specifics, because our good friend from California (Mr. Dreier) was here earlier challenging our description of our inability to make an impact and offer our ideas here. He described this mythological bipartisan process. Well, let us counter some of the facts he threw out there.

There have been 85 pieces of legislation that have had rules applied to them. For those who are listening that do not know what that means, we have restrictions placed on our ability as Members to offer amendments and offer our own ideas and help shape legislation every time, almost every time a bill is introduced on the floor. There have been 85 such bills that have been introduced.

Of those, 38 of them have had restrictive rules, meaning the Committee on Rules decides which, if any, amendments we are going to be allowed to offer. Fifteen of those rules, 15 individual pieces of legislation, have been entirely closed, meaning no Member is allow to offer any amendments whatsoever. Three additional closed rules were added into an entirely separate bill. Of the 85 pieces of legislation that have come on this floor that have had rules apply to them, there has only been one substantive bill that had an open rule, meaning any Member can offer, meaning any Member elected in our own right, each by the same 633,000 people that we all represent, only one substantive bill has had an open rule where we can offer any amendment and any idea that we would like to offer.

What we are here going to say is that the emperor truly does have not clothes. If you remember that story, everyone in the kingdom in that story refused to acknowledge that the emperor was buck naked because they were worried about the consequences. They wanted to make sure that nothing happened to them. Well, we are not afraid. We are not afraid.

It needs to be highlighted and underscored. What they are doing to the American people needs to be brought out, and we are saying do not believe us. This is not what Kendrick Meek and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are saying or Tim Ryan or any of the other Members that have come to this floor to share angst and concern.

We are saying look at the third party validators that we have saying the exact same thing. We are saying look at the religious leaders who are urging and who just yesterday came to the Congress to urge the congressional leadership not to put forth these drastic cuts that are going to hurt people.

This is from today's Washington Post. This is not a quotation from someone else. This is in the story on the budget cuts. It says, With so many controversial provisions, the House measure is forcing Republican leaders to scramble for support in what could be the most difficult vote of the year. Well, I would agree. This should be the most difficult vote of the year. When you are cutting people's food stamps, when you are cutting their children's ability to get free and reduced lunch, when you are cutting $4.9 billion from child support programs that help people collect money from deadbeat dads, yeah, I would guess that is a tough vote. Lord, I would hope so.

It goes on to say, Some Republican moderates are balking at cuts to anti-poverty programs, especially in light of the $70 billion tax cut that could come to a vote soon after the budget bill, more than wiping out that bill's deficit reduction.

Well, here it is. It is not what Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek are saying. The article describing the budget cuts, the reconciliation bill, specifically says that there is no deficit reduction in what they are doing. What they are doing is to try to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthy,

make sure that their right wing, that their right flank does not go absolutely ballistic, because that wing of the party does not care about taking care of people. They are trying to make sure they preserve what they have and what the upper echelon has.

Let us talk about because if you do not believe the Washington Post, you think it is paper that is off the mark, let us just go through what some of our religious leaders are saying. We are not talking about liberal religious leaders or progressive religious leaders. We are talking about mainstream religious leadership that came here yesterday and joined in prayer at the Capitol.

They included Reverend Dr. Bob Edgar, who is the general secretary of the National Council of Churches of the United States; Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine; Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center; and Eleanor Giddings Ivory of the Presbyterian Church. Let me go through a couple of things that they said in urging the Republican leadership not to do this, not to harm and cause harm to the people that this budget will affect.

Reverend Jim Wallis: ``As this moral battle for the budget unfolds, I am calling on Members of Congress, some of whom make much out of their faith, to start some Bible studies before they cast votes to cut food stamps, Medicaid, child care and more that hurt the weakest in our Nation.''

Rabbi David Saperstein: The budget reconciliation package with its $50 billion in program cuts and $70 billion tax cuts giveaway is morally unjustifiable.

Reverend Eleanor Giddings Ivory of the Presbyterian Church: I am here today to express concern for the Federal budget reconciliation packages under consideration in the House and the Senate. Our Nation is about to balance its budget on the backs of the poor. Is that a moral thing to do? Clearly the answer is, no, it is not.

Let me just tell you, I was so moved by Rabbi Saperstein's comments in their effort yesterday. He, as is the practice of many of our religious colleagues on both sides of the aisle but particularly because the Republican leadership and its Members like to use their faith so often to underscore how they have injected values into government, Rabbi Saperstein urged our colleagues and said that they ought to remember that the Bible urges us to ``deal thy bread to the hungry,'' not ``steal thy bread from the hungry.'' He asked us to remember Proverbs' stern warning: ``Do not steal from the weak because he is weak and do not oppress the poor in the gate.''

I could go on, but there have been many more than just the religious leaders that were here yesterday who have urged this Congress not to take these actions. It not only will harm people, cause grave harm for people who have already been on the brink, it will not improve anything. It does not reduce our deficit. It does not improve our economy. It only brings harm, and I think if we are going to subscribe to anything it is the physician's oath. That should be something we live by, which is first do no harm. When we get here, we should commit to doing no harm, and it appears unfortunately as though the Republican leadership came here to do the opposite.

That is combined.

If the gentleman will yield before we branch off to Iraq just for a second.

You know, I have been seriously considering coming to the Chamber next Friday in my pajamas, given the track record of controversial votes, where they make their Members, the Republican leadership makes their Members puke blood in not allowing them to decide what to do, to stand on the courage of their convictions. They keep the board open, and we watch it light up like a Christmas tree up there, red to green, green to red. It is just unbelievable.

Sometimes I think the board is malfunctioning. Maybe it is not functioning. Maybe we should get an electrician in here. Maybe we should have the electrician check the wiring behind the Republican Members' names and their lights, because they do not seem to be able to pick one and have it stay there. Every time they have to cast a controversial vote, it goes from no to yes, then yes to no; or they do not appear to be able to turn their own light on for a very long time, because they cannot decide. Is it that they cannot decide?

I just want to make sure, because it is deeply concerning to me that they would not know when they came to the floor how to vote on a bill that is going to cut food stamps, that is going to cut financial aid, that cuts access to affordable energy, that allows drilling around the entire coastline of the United States of America where it is not currently allowed. So there has to be something wrong with the wiring.

Next week, I am going to be here in my pajamas and a teddy bear with a nice cup of coffee because we are really going to have to settle in for a long night. It is not going to be a normal 15-minute or a normal 5-minute vote, because I think the wiring under that board is going to go haywire next week. They are clearly not going to get their way right away because this is going to be a gut-wrenching angst-ridden vote. Woe to the Member on their side that does not vote how the leadership wants them to.

Sometimes when we talk in trillions and billions and millions it is a hard concept for people to understand. I know it is hard for me. A trillion is such a huge number. An $8 trillion deficit is what we are in the middle of

right now. That is a huge number. I sometimes cannot understand how big that number is. It is also hard to understand what an $844 million cut from the food stamp program is, or the kind of cuts they are going to be passing down in this budget reconciliation document that is going to affect affordable housing.

I want to show this picture. This picture is of me standing in the apartment of one of my constituents whose roof caved in on her during Hurricane Wilma. These are the people that, on top of what they have already gone through, on top of what they have already gone through, now we are going to cut the budget that funds the very programs that exist to help them.

There are people in dire straits in south Florida after Hurricane Wilma and in the gulf coast region after Katrina. There are people who before the hurricanes hit were in dire straits. This is what the problem really looks like for people. These people cannot live in homes like this because this home was condemned. Obviously, nobody can live in the apartment in this picture, and I wish that there was only one that looked like this in south Florida. This is the plight that we are putting people through.

Before we give out the Web site, I want to close by saying that we are in the middle of adding ``C'' after ``C'': with the culture of corruption, cronyism, and the lack of confidence that the American people have in their government, and now we have the coverup Congress. That is what came to light here this week. We have repeatedly asked for investigations, that this leadership stand up and do what is right. And Leader Pelosi has tried to get them to do that, and they have unanimously rejected that.

We are going to continue to come back to this floor and stand up for the American people, and I look forward to continuing this dialogue with my colleague.