Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 692 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 692 is a structured rule providing 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution.

The rule further provides that the amendments printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, except that upon adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, only the last amendment printed in the report shall be in order. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, as the only Member of the House serving on both the Committee on Rules and the Committee on the Budget, I have become increasingly convinced of the need for significant changes in the congressional budget process, particularly with respect to the spending side of the budget ledger. Enactment of H.R. 4663 would make major strides toward providing the House with the tools needed to enforce spending discipline in a time of unacceptable high Federal deficits.

Like many Members, I wish the bill reported went even further, but it is an important first step. For that reason, I am pleased that the Committee on Rules has made in order a long list of proposed amendments to provide the House with multiple opportunities to strengthen the base bill.

At the heart of the bill are proposals to reinstate spending caps on discretionary spending, consistent with the

levels set forth in the budget resolution, and a 2-year extension of the pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, requirements for mandatory spending. It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that this latter provision requires that bills increasing entitlement spending must be offset by reductions in other spending and not by raising taxes.

The bill also provides that any breach of either of these spending disciplines would result in automatic spending cuts known as ``sequesters.''

Finally, the bill takes the responsible approach to the sometimes legitimate need for ``emergency'' spending by permitting such measures only when they result from circumstances that are truly unanticipated, temporary, and are needed for the preservation of life, property, or national security. The bill also requires that future spending projections no longer assume that these one-time ``emergency'' spending levels will continue in future years.

Mr. Speaker, the congressional budget process was a badly needed reform back in 1974; and while it served us well in that time period, it can serve us better. This bill is an important step towards that goal; and, accordingly, I encourage Members to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a senior member of the Committee on the Budget and a leader in the budget reform process in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, I would respond to my friend from Texas, our committee has to make a lot of difficult decisions sometimes with the number of amendments that are brought in. Sometimes we have to make choices that are going to disappoint some Members. My friend from Texas has been here, and I confess that maybe he has been disappointed more than once.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Committee on the Budget and also a leader on budget reform.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue, and it is one that needs to be debated as we can see by the debate that we have had here simply on the rule. We expect a more vigorous debate as the issues are presented and as amendments are offered.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove the requirement that 20 functional categories be included in the annual budget resolution, and grant the Budget Committee the discretion to include such categories, if any, as they deem appropriate.

With this change to the 30-year old Congressional Budget Act, we can properly return debate to the ``big picture,'' macroeconomic budget issues that were intended to be the focus of the budget resolution when the act was passed in 1974.

Annual budget debates have been bogged down in recent years by often bitter disputes over funding for scores of Federal programs within these 20 budget functions. This has become an enormous distraction for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and harmed the process of making rational decisions about overall Federal fiscal policy.

The 20 functional categories are intended to illustrate how the Federal spending could be allocated under the budget resolution. However, the functions do not direct how much money is eventually spent for programs covered by each specific function. Function totals also do not specifically mandate how the Appropriations Committee makes allocations to its 13 subcommittees.

Yet, despite the reality that these functions have no real power over actual spending decisions, every year tremendous time, energy and resources are dedicated to influencing the levels of particular functions.

Interest groups mobilize and massive lobbying efforts are undertaken to try and affect often very slight changes in functions' totals and in budget report language. Yet, at the end of the day, these efforts do not effect the spending and taxing decisions the Congress will make later in the year.

This is a severe distraction from critically important budget questions that deserve attention and clear debate.

In the midst of the debate over how much to spend on this program, or that program or in this function or that function--what can get lost are the most fundamental matters of what the budget is going to look like:

How much is the government going to spend next year?

How much is going to be collected in taxes?

Will the government's budget be in balance? Or will there be a surplus or deficit?

How do all of these affect the public debt?

I believe we must clear away the distractions that have overtaken the budget process. The first step in the annual budget process in Congress should be discussion and reaching agreement on overall spending, tax and debt levels in a budget resolution. We must be a real handle on the federal budget and the macroeconomic factors that the budget resolution is designed to guide and over which it actually has control.

Decisions on spending on individual programs do not need to be debated twice--once during consideration of the budget resolution and again during open debate on Appropriations bills.

As the fiscal challenges that our Nation will face with the effects of a retiring Baby Boom generation, it is more important than ever to focus our budget decisions in a manner that best directs attention to the critical choices we face today and the effects they will have on our children and the country's future.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 2 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Thursday, June 24, 2004, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me time to speak on this rule and about the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to celebrate an enormously important change in the Federal income Tax Code that is a key part of the American Jobs Creation Act, a return to fairness for the residents of States that have no State income tax.

The Federal 1986 Tax Reform Act eliminated the State sales tax deduction from the Federal income Tax Code, but maintained the State income tax deduction from one's Federal income tax responsibilities. Washington is a non-income tax State. Americans who live, work, and raise their families in Washington, in my view, have been treated unfairly since 1986. And Washington State is not alone. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming all do not have statewide income taxes. Clearly these States are a minority in this House and, indeed, in this Congress.

There are not just party majorities and minorities in Congress, there are similar divisions on policies and issues, and this is one of them. When it comes to trying to fix the Federal Tax Code's discrimination against non-income tax States, the congressional delegations from the affected States had and have been a distinct minority in this body.

Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues and I from the affected States will have the first opportunity to correct this longstanding injustice by voting to pass the American Jobs Creation Act. It has taken hard work on both sides of the aisle to get this change made. The Washington State delegation has worked on this issue for years. Republicans and Democrats have pitched in where they are able and tried to get this job done. But probably the best illustration of just how difficult a challenge it has been to correct this injustice is to look back on who served as the most powerful member of this body after the 1986 tax reform.

That tax reform became law in October of 1986. In January of 1987 the Democrat majority in the House at that time elected a Speaker of the House from the State of Texas. When this Texas Speaker's tenure ended, the Democratic majority elected a Speaker of the House from Washington State. For four Congresses, this House was run by a Speaker from one of the nine non-income tax States. Yet even with this powerful office, the States' tax codes and fairness did not get corrected by a vote in this House.

Mr. Speaker, this just demonstrates how long and hard a road these congressional delegations from these sales tax States have been traveling.

Today we can and will make a big change for the better for our States. This bill is a tremendous victory in my view. Comments have been made that the State sales tax portion of this bill is not perfect, and it does not return the Federal Tax Codes to its pre-1986 reform wording and that the State sales tax deduction will eventually sunset. I will only say after working so long, after struggling such long odds for nearly 20 years when our States have had no deduction, I say let us grab the victory; seize the one bird in our hand as tight as we can, especially when we have not seen two birds in a bush for nearly 2 decades.

This bill will provide billions of dollars of relief to tax payers in Washington and the other States in this tax year and for the next year. Let us get this enacted into law. It will be working to include a change in the future that will make this permanent, obviously.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and especially urge all of my colleagues from non-income tax States to support the American Jobs Creation Act.

I rise today to pay tribute to two constituents who are not only leaders in the State of Washington but are dedicated humanitarians that have positively impacted lives around the world.

The husband and wife team of Dr. Lewis Zirkle and Dr. Sarah Zirkle was recently named Tri-Citians of the Year for devoting over 30 years to helping those less fortunate--both here at home and abroad. This award is presented once each year to an outstanding citizen of the TriCities area in Washington state.

Dr. Lewis Zirkle is an orthopedic specialist who served as an Army surgeon in the Vietnam War. After the war, he made numerous return trips to Vietnam and other developing nations to help local health care providers establish more effective surgical techniques for treating fractures.

In 1999, Dr. Zirkle founded the Surgical Implant Generation Network (SIGN) to help provide a system of training, hardware and follow-up assistance to orthopedic surgeons in developing countries. In just 5 years, SIGN has developed over 42 projects that are operating around the world, which are supplied with surgical hardware from a state-of- the-art manufacturing facility.

Dr. Sara Zirkle also has a long list of accomplishments. As a developmental and behavioral pediatric specialist, she has been a strong advocate on behalf of children. She helped found the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic at Kadlec Medical Center in Richland, Washington and the Mid-Columbia Reading Foundation. She has received numerous awards and recognition for her work with abused children.

The Zirkles exemplify the best of America. I am proud to have them as constituents in the Fourth District of Washington state and I know they will continue to devote their time to helping others.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 674 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 674 is an open rule waiving all points of order against consideration of H.R. 4568, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2005.

The rule provides for one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The resolution provides, per the rules of the House, that the bill shall be read for amendments by paragraph. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, are waived except as specified in the resolution.

The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority recognition to Members who have preprinted amendments in the Congressional Record.

The rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4568, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2005, sets clear priorities in a year of tight budgets.

The chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies faced a difficult challenge and has written a solid bill that focuses on meeting the Federal Government's core responsibilities in the agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction.

Priority was given to essential functions and duties of these agencies, rather than on launching new initiatives and expanding government's reach.

One of the highest priorities must be preventing wildfires on our national lands. This bill provides $2.6 billion for wildland firefighting in the National Fire Plan. This is a significant increase over fiscal year 2004, and it is a much-needed increase.

Wildfires have a dramatic impact on our public lands, on private property and, even tragically, on human life. We must maintain the commitment to working to prevent such blazes and combating them aggressively when they do strike.

Another priority must be providing for our existing parks and public lands. This bill increases funding for our national parks, a total of $1.7 billion. For example, the bill includes $471 million to address the backlog in maintenance at our national parks and places restrictions on travel expenses for Park Service officials, a common- sense policy during a time when our parks have serious maintenance needs. Addressing these maintenance needs is something that I have long supported.

The bill also includes increased funding over the fiscal year 2004 level for the Indian Health Service, the National Forest System, BIA Education and Operations of Indian Programs and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Funding is limited for Federal land acquisition, a decision on priorities that I strongly support. In a year of fiscal constraints, it certainly is appropriate to focus first on maintaining the Federal Government's existing lands.

Land acquisition is not a necessity. Indeed, it costs local governments through decreased tax revenue and has real impact on local governments' abilities to provide essential services.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for his leadership in writing H.R. 4568, especially in this challenging year. The gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) has guided this bill in a reasonable and responsible manner, which is especially appreciated in all areas of the West like the district I represent that are heavily impacted by the work of Federal agencies under his jurisdiction.

I also want to recognize the role that I know the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, my colleague from Washington State (Mr. Dicks), played in the preparation of this bill. I value highly our ability to work together on matters of importance to Washington State, and this is a good example of that. I know my colleague's dedication to solving challenges and bettering our Nation are traits he brings to all of his responsibilities here in the House.

So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this open rule, H. Res. 674, and the underlying Interior Appropriations bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 671 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 671 is a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy Act of 2004; and H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4503, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources, and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule also provides one motion to recommit.

Section 2 of the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4517 to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule also provides one motion to recommit H.R. 4517.

Mr. Speaker, the first bill provided for under the rule, H.R. 4503, reflects the conference report on H.R. 6 that passed the House this November by a vote of 246 to 180. It is a bipartisan, comprehensive energy plan that is focused on providing a secure and diverse energy supply for our Nation.

There is bipartisan agreement on this plan to modernize our power generation systems, improve conservation and promote the development of renewable energy resources. The predominant source of energy varies among the different regions of our country. The bipartisan energy plan is comprehensive and addresses energy produced from oil, natural gas, wind, biomass, solar, coal, nuclear, and hydro.

In my area, the Pacific Northwest, Mr. Speaker, our primary source of power comes from hydroelectric dams. Clean, low-cost hydropower was critical to building the Northwest's economy. Whether it was electricity to irrigate central Washington's farms or to build airplanes in Seattle, it was vital to our economy.

This bipartisan agreement includes reforms to the lengthy and costly dam relicensing process that is critical to maintaining our region's low-cost hydropower. Environmental protections are preserved while providing flexibility to reduce costs and delays. Getting this plan enacted into law will help keep prices lower for Northwest families and for job-creating businesses.

An adequate, affordable energy supply is vital for a growing economy and job creation, and we need to get this plan enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, today, the United States imports nearly 60 percent of its oil. This energy plan contains provisions to reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. The second bill provided for under this rule, H.R. 4517, will also help increase our Nation's energy independence.

The United States Refinery Revitalization Act would responsibly encourage the opening of previously closed refineries in the United States and the construction of new refineries to increase the domestic supply of gasoline which would help lower the price at the pump.

American demand for gasoline and refined fuels currently outpaces the capacity of our Nation to produce these needed products, and consumption of gasoline is expected to rise as our economy grows over the next 2 decades. Our choice as a Nation is to either increase our dependence on foreign sources of fuel or to help ensure refineries are built in America, which will create jobs here rather than at refineries in other countries.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to act and get a bipartisan energy plan enacted into law. It is time to increase America's energy independence. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule, H. Res. 671, and the two underlying bills, H.R. 4503 and H.R. 4517.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think probably the right thing to do is just review back to how we got to this point. Let us remind ourselves we have not had an energy policy in this country for several decades, and we need to have an energy policy. This House has passed three energy bills, and the other body has not acted on those three energy bills.

The last energy bill, however, did get to a conference where we worked out the disagreements between both of the bodies, and the ensuing conference report was then passed by this body and then went to the other body and was subject to a filibuster which, of course, is in their rules. In order to break that filibuster, it takes 60 votes. They got 58 votes. The presumption would be if they had a chance to vote up or down on the bill that perhaps they would have enough votes to pass the energy bill.

But I think it is even more instructive to go back and reflect on how we got to this point of the conference report. In the House alone in the last 3 years, we had 80 public hearings on energy policy in this country. We had 11 markups in the various committees on this energy bill. They considered 224 amendments, and we had 5 days of floor debate with 39 amendments in this body.

In the other body, there were 37 hearings, there were eight markups, and they had weeks of debate on the floor. When they finally got to conference, which of course is the final product which will develop the bill which will ultimately be the policy of this country, there were nine public hearings, there were 24 hours of debate. On a bipartisan basis, there were 10 staff meetings working out some of the details, and to say that this was not made public totally misses the point because there were 14 titles and 1,163 pages of text posted on the Web.

It is not surprising then with this background that the conference report dealing with our energy policy would pass on a bipartisan basis: 246 in this body to 180 against.

So I would just remind the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that there was a great deal of work that went into this. We are simply bringing the bill back again with the idea to pass an energy bill that we need, and we need it very badly. It has been reflected, of course, in the higher prices of gasoline, which, I might add, are starting to reduce because of market pressures; and I am in favor of that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think to set the record straight there has been a great deal of work that has gone into the original bill and into this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bills.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Linder) from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend from Washington that I am outraged as he is and other speakers have been by the revelation of the traders at Enron. No question about that. It is in black and white.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the revelations that came to light last week regarding the tapes on the Enron traders. As I started to say earlier, that is pretty black and white, and it is bad. There is absolutely no question about that. And FERC is responsible for that. FERC has been working on this for some time. They have been. I think, frankly, they have been moving rather slowly. But now that this new information is out, I think FERC has to move much more quickly on this issue because there is an awful lot at stake for the rate payers in the western part of my State and certainly in my State and, indeed, the whole northwest. So I share concerns with my colleagues on the west coast that FERC needs to act immediately, and I hope that they would.

I might also add that since these revelations came to light last week about the trading, the Department of Justice has now weighed in, as they properly should. So we will get to the bottom about this. I do not think there is any question about that. But there is no way that anybody in this body can condone what we heard that was made public with those tapes.

So with that, getting back to the business at hand, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan is a large part of why I have the honor of standing here today. I am from Washington State but in the mid-1960s I lived in California. In 1966 I had the privilege of casting my first vote for Ronald Reagan in the gubernatorial primary and subsequently in the general election when he was elected Governor.

I moved back to Washington in 1976, and I served as a Reagan delegate to the Presidential Convention in Kansas City. He inspired me to get involved in public service. And 2 years later, I was elected to the Washington State legislature.

Reagan viewed the government as a servant of the people, not their master. Throughout his career, he worked for less government control over our lives. During his first inaugural address he said, and I quote, ``It is not my intent to do away with government. It is rather to make it work, work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it, foster productivity, not stifle it.''

While he made no apologies for what he believed, he was a pragmatist, not willing to sacrifice the good for the perfect. He has been quoted as saying, and I quote, ``Die-hard conservatives thought that if I could not get everything that I asked for, I should jump off the cliff with the flag flying, go down in flames. No,'' he said, ``if I can get 70 or 80 percent of what I am trying to get, I will take that and then continue to try to get the rest in the future.''

We can all point to a handful of people who shaped us into what we are today. My list certainly includes Ronald Reagan, who helped shape both my political ideology and the day-to-day manner in which I try to govern: without acrimony, with a touch of humor, and with an unwavering faith in the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I see one of my predecessors from the Fourth District is waiting to speak, too.

I want to congratulate our Members for being here to honor Catherine May Bedell. I regret that I did not know her. She represented the Fourth Congressional District. I did not know her. I knew of her. I did cast ballots for her before I got actively involved in politics. But she was certainly somebody that had leadership qualities.

I recall that in one of the articles announcing that she had passed away, one of my friends serves in the State legislature, Mary Skinner said that she first remembers when she met Catherine May, and she was impressed by the presence that she had in a group of people talking about policy. I thought that was a very high compliment.

I, too, spoke with Jim May. He kind of gave me a heads-up on Tuesday, and I did not touch bases with him until Wednesday when we had a conversation. Catherine May Bedell just turned 90 last month. My mother also just turned 90 last month. He told me that she passed away very quietly in her sleep; and she had a very, very good life. Obviously, when you lose somebody as close as your mother, it is a shock to you, but he said she lived a very, very good life.

I am certainly pleased to be here on the floor with my colleagues to honor one of my predecessors who represented my district in Washington State.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 657 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 657 is a rule providing for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 83, a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding appointment of individuals to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives.

The rule provides for 90 minutes of debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, on April 22 of this year, the House of Representatives debated and voted on H.R. 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act, which provides for the expedited special election of new Members to fill seats left vacant due to extraordinary circumstances.

Such circumstances would be deemed to exist when the Speaker of the House announces that vacancies in the House exceed 100 members. The special elections would be required to be held within 45 days. This bill passed the House with a broad majority of 306 votes in favor to 97 against.

At the foundation of the Continuity in Representation Act is the principle that Members of this House ought to be elected by the people. This principle has guided service in this institution since its inception. Indeed, the purpose of the House is to serve as a Chamber that is closest to the people; closest to the people due to the equal size of our constituencies; closest to the people due to the frequency of elections; and, most important, closest to the people because of the direct election by the people.

I support the Founding Fathers' view that Members of the House ought to be directly elected by the people and not selected for them.

This rule provides for consideration of an approach that would amend the Constitution and allow for immediate appointment within 7 days of replacements for Members due to the death or incapacity of a majority of the House's membership. The appointments would be made by the chief executives of the States where a vacancy exists from a list provided and maintained by the elected Member.

While I do not agree with changing the Constitution's requirements that Members of the House be directly elected, I do sincerely believe that our colleagues who do support this constitutional amendment deserve the opportunity to have their proposal voted upon by the House.

Mr. Speaker, following the tragic events of September 11, this House has a responsibility and duty to consider the fate of this institution should it become necessary to replace a significant number of Members due to a deadly terrorist attack.

Neither passage of the expedited elections bill nor consideration of H.J. Res. 83 alone serves as a comprehensive response to the continuity of this House in the face of deadly attack. For example, we must consider appropriate responses in the event that a large number of Members are incapacitated rather than killed. This is a potential scenario that cannot be ignored in a time of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons.

In order to act, the Constitution requires the House to achieve a quorum of majority of all Members living and sworn. When a Member dies or resigns, the Speaker under the rules adjusts the quorum. However, the Framers never contemplated and made no provisions for the need to adjust the required quorum when large numbers of Members are still living but unable to carry out, temporarily or otherwise, the duties of the office to which they have been sworn. Under current law, if more than half of the House were to become incapacitated yet not deceased, the House could be unable to act at a time when the need to do so could hardly be greater.

On April 29, the House Committee on Rules held an original jurisdiction hearing on the incapacitation of Members. Under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), the Committee on Rules is approaching this important issue with the seriousness and thoughtfulness it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, while H.J. Res. 83 provides for the appointment of replacing representatives due to incapacity of elected Members, it does not offer an answer on how the House is to proceed on the question of defining or declaring incapacitation. These are important questions and the House must continue to deliberate seriously on their solutions.

I am committed to working to address this complex continuity issue, and I know that the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) will continue their personal involvement and leadership on this issue, as well as other committed colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and continue the important consideration of how this House will operate should massive tragedy strike.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and an individual who has been a leader on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we can sure tell how important this debate is, and I do appreciate my colleague from Washington State for his passion on this. I do disagree with his approach, but he is going to have an opportunity to debate that when this rule passes, and we will have a debate on a constitutional amendment of appointing Members of this body.

But I want to just go back and I guess reflect on how we have tried to deal with this in the course of the history of our country.

After the Revolutionary War, when we formed a new government, it was the Articles of Confederation. Our Founders found out that did not work all that well for a variety of reasons, I suspect because there was a division of powers and there was no central government, and so the Founders had to figure out a way how do we respect the people's government, which I think is very, very important, and still have some central authority.

Part of that compromise was to make a bicameral legislature in which the lower house, the House of Representatives, the People's House, would always be elected by the people. Perhaps this debate is evolving into that very essential principle.

I think that the government, this government of the people, by the people and for the people, as Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address, can function very well. I also believe there is no single answer to this question as we move forward.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that we passed the Continuity of Congress Act providing for expedited elections by the States. This may be an approach. But even if we were to pass a constitutional amendment, and I do not think it is going to get the two-thirds, it would take up to perhaps 7 years to get that ratified by three-fourths of the States. We have to have something in place. I hope the other body acts on the continuity issue so we can have something in place to take care of that.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue, and this will be the first time we will have an opportunity, the first time certainly to my knowledge that we will have an issue before the People's House, the U.S. House of Representatives, that will allow for something other than a direct election, under whatever circumstance, of Members of this House. This is a very, very important issue. I think it deserves to have a debate. This rule provides 90 minutes for that debate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we will have a vigorous debate on this. As I mentioned, I am opposed to the underlying constitutional amendment. I think it is bad policy, but I think it should be debated in the People's House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will restore $50 million cut by the House Armed Services Committee from the Department of Energy's proposed nuclear waste cleanup budget.

It is important that the Federal government meet its legal and contractual cleanup obligations.

By returning $50 million to the Defense Site Acceleration Completion account, this amendment helps make certain that funds are available to ensure the Federal government continues the progress being made at cleaning up our Nation's nuclear waste sites.

Although the Committee decreased the portion of the nuclear waste cleanup budget related to high-level liquid waste, the remainder of the cleanup budget was fully authorized by the Committee. I am grateful for the support shown for cleanup by Armed Services Committee Chairman Hunter and Subcommittee Chairman Everett. However, I offered this amendment because I believe Congress ought to make certain that the funds deemed necessary for cleanup next year by the Department of Energy, and included in the President's budget, are made available.

The Committee's action to cut funding for high-level liquid waste cleanup comes after a Federal district court ruling on high-level waste. While agreement on this matter has not yet been realized between the Department of Energy and the States in which affected waste sites are located, I believe it is important for the Congress to make available the funding so that planned cleanup activity does not have to be postponed due to unavailability of funds.

By adding back $50 million, my amendment helps advance cleanup progress next year.

The Federal government has a responsibility--a responsibility under the law...a contractual responsibility with the affected States...and a moral responsibility--to cleanup its nuclear waste sites.

At the Hanford cleanup site in my Washington State congressional district, there are 177 underground tanks containing more than 50 million gallons of liquid waste that are affected by this funding.

For many, those figures may be difficult to imagine--but for the people I represent in Washington State, the more than 50 million gallons of radioactive, nuclear waste is very real.

The citizens of Washington State did not invite this waste into our State--in the 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project, the Federal government moved farmers from their land and uprooted several small communities from a 586 square mile area along the Columbia River to make room for a top-secret effort that ultimately helped lead to an end of the Second World War, and over the decades that followed, to victory in the Cold War. The legacy of this nuclear production is the more than 50 million gallons of liquid waste.

It is the Department of Energy's obligation to cleanup these wastes-- and I will hold the Department responsible for getting this work done. I pushed this amendment to restore $50 million to the cleanup budget because it is essential that the funds be available to keep cleanup on track. I also firmly believe that the State of Washington must be involved in these decisions. I have opposed and will oppose any effort to force a solution on Washington State. Department of Energy officials have expressed their commitment not to pursue a change in the law that does not have the support of the affected states--and that commitment is constructive to resolving this matter.

It has been my consistent view that the Department of Energy and States have a shared responsibility to resolve the current situation-- and I want to strongly reiterate that for the sake of cleaning up this massive volume of waste, reducing its potential threat to health and the environment, and to make certain cleanup progress is not jeopardized, that the sooner this matter is resolved, the better. I know the Department of Energy and States are committed to cleaning up these wastes--and continued disagreement only makes that shared goal more difficult. I will keep pushing for a resolution and I will continue working to make certain funds are available for cleanup work.

I also want to express my great respect and appreciation to Mr. Simpson of Idaho and Mr. Barrett of South Carolina for the assistance and support they provided for this amendment and for success in adding $50 million to the cleanup budget.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 649 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 649 waives all points of order against the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005, and its

consideration. The rule provides that the conference report shall be considered read and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

Section 2 of the rule provides that upon adoption in the House of the conference report, and until a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 has been adopted by Congress, the provisions of the conference report and its joint explanatory statement shall have force and effect in the House.

The rule provides that for the purposes of title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the conference report shall be considered for the purposes of the House to have been adopted by the Congress. The rule provides that nothing in section 2 may be construed to engage rule XXVII.

Section 3 of the rule provides that the conferees of the House on H.R. 2660, shall be, and they are hereby, discharged and that H.R. 2660 and its accompanying papers be, and are hereby, laid upon the table.

This conference report adheres to the principal goals of the House- passed budget, Mr. Speaker, strengthening America, growing our economy, and continuing our Nation's long history as a land of opportunity. This budget provides for increased funding to help secure America's borders, defend against biological attacks, protect our critical infrastructure, and to prepare first responders. It takes a comprehensive and responsible approach to protecting our Nation, winning the war on terror, and preparing us for future security needs and challenges.

Mr. Speaker, our economy is growing. It is headed in the right direction. By avoiding tax increases and protecting the child tax credit, relief from the marriage penalty, and tax relief for lower- income workers, this budget continues the policies that are helping to grow our economy. The budget also provides for full funding of Medicare so that seniors can get help paying for their prescription drugs for the first time ever.

It also includes a $3.3 billion increase in budget authority for education to accommodate increases in programs like Pell Grants, special education, and Title I. And it provides for the full funding of No Child Left Behind.

Mr. Speaker, it helps us keep promises to our veterans by providing an additional $1.2 billion over the President's requested increase for veterans' health care.

The budget provides for these priorities and puts us on track to cut the deficit in 4 years, with deficits declining each and every year, and this is accomplished without raising taxes on the American people.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I would like to congratulate the chairman of that committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), and the conferees for producing a budget that is focused on securing America, creating jobs, and responsibly planning for the future. I encourage, therefore, my colleagues to support both the rule, H.R. 649, and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to a couple of points.

The gentleman correctly pointed out that within this rule there is the provision that the debt limit will be raised. I think most people in this body recognize that.

I mean, after all, we inherited 4 years ago a recession, then 9/11 happened, and we certainly had to fund the war on terror and all of those efforts, and that took more money than we had. In fact, in every budget that we considered on the floor, the other side acknowledged that we had to raise the debt limit.

So, yes, if this is passed, and if the Senate passes this conference report, the debt limit will have been raised. However, if the Senate does not act on this, then we will have another opportunity to look at that debt limit in a different manner.

I just wanted to make that clarification.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

My point of order is when a Member yields time to another Member, does that Member have responsibility to abide by the time he was yielded to speak?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important document. It is an important document because this sets the parameters of congressional spending to fund the government for 2005. We have heard a great deal from the other side in this debate about the debt limit. I addressed that earlier. I acknowledge that because we inherited a recession 4 years ago and we were attacked by terrorists and now we are engaged in an international war on terrorism, yes, we have spent more than we have taken in, and we do have to address this issue of raising the debt limit. But if we do not pass a budget resolution, that means we will not have any discipline on the appropriation process as we go through appropriating dollars for fiscal year 2005. That means if we have no discipline that the debt limit will increase higher because that is the way this body has always worked. Passing this budget is very important to put that discipline in place.

I would also make the observation, as I made earlier, every budget substitute amendment that was presented earlier when we were debating the House version of the budget, every one of those budgets acknowledged that we were going to have to address raising the debt limit in the future. Every one of them. They had it in different ways, different opportunities. Nevertheless, everyone acknowledged the fact that we have to address the debt limit problem.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest this, and I have learned this in the time that you and I have been here in this body. We will go through the appropriation process one way or the other. I think it is better to have the discipline of having a budget. But if we do not have the discipline of having a budget agreed to by both Houses, I suspect that what we will see when we go through the appropriation process from the other side, we will see, continually, amendments offered to raise more spending, which, of course, if it followed what they would be suggesting, we will have to raise the debt limit even higher. Sometimes I wonder what the debate is when I hear their rhetoric as we go through this process.

I would urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question, vote for the rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 55 minutes a.m.), legislative day of Tuesday, May 18, 2004, the House adjourned until today, Wednesday, May 19, 2004, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 628 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 628 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of House Resolution 627, deploring the abuse of persons in United States custody in Iraq, regardless of the circumstances of their detention, urging the Secretary of the Army to bring to swift justice to any member of

the Armed Forces who has violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and expressing the deep appreciation of the Nation to the courageous and honorable members of the Armed Forces who have selflessly served, or are currently serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule provides one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions.

Mr. Speaker, Members of this House, and indeed millions of concerned Americans, have been appalled by reports that Iraqi prisoners have been severely mistreated by their U.S. captors. President Bush has rightly pledged to ensure that those responsible for this abuse are brought to justice, and that process is already under way.

Mr. Speaker, in a society like ours that prides itself on its commitment to civil and human rights, there is no place for the sorts of atrocities depicted in recent days in newspaper and television accounts from Iraq.

Thankfully, it appears that the reported abuses have been the exception, rather than the rule, during this conflict. But that does nothing to excuse those who carried out or permitted the acts in question to take place. They must be punished swiftly and surely.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we must not permit the outrageous acts of a relative few to stain the service of more than 100,000 of our brave American men and women who are risking their lives every day in the cause of freedom. They are doing what is right, and they are doing it the right way. Their services make us all proud to be Americans.

Therefore, in addition to strongly condemning the acts of abuse by U.S. personnel against Iraqi prisoners, House Resolution 627 also pays tribute to the selfless service of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, the President has spoken loudly and clearly on this subject, and it is imperative that we in the House do the same. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to support both the rule and House Resolution 627.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), the distinguished Republican Conference chairman.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the author of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

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

This is an important resolution, and I think it is fitting we have this debate on this. But I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that we have a system here where we break down this big body into committees. That is the proper way we get to the heart of some of the issues that confront us. And I just talked to the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, and they are going to have hearings on this. There will be probably several hearings as this process goes through, and I suspect that there will be probably some other committees that will find out if they will have jurisdiction and will look at that.

So I just want to say that this is a start of a process that we need to address. Everybody is outraged by what happened over there with that small group of individuals in Iraq. That is not America, and we all know that. We all know that is not America, and that is why I think this resolution will be pass with strong bipartisan support.

And I would say this, Mr. Speaker: I thought the President, in his two interviews with the Arab TV stations, said it very well. He was very forthright. And in many respects, what we are just saying here today is a message to the Iraqis and to the Middle East that our form of government and the form of government they are struggling to have, does not condone what went on, and I think that is a very strong message.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the gentleman is asking for, and as I mentioned in my remarks, we do have a committee system. The chairman of the committee said that there are going to be those investigations, and I suspect there will be others that will look at it.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just remind my friend that we do not know what is going to come out of these hearings. There may be some legislation that comes out. It will go through the process, and if there is something, it will get to the floor and we will have that debate.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 2844, pursuant to House Resolution 602, the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary be considered as the original bill for the purpose of amendment, and the amendment I have placed at the desk be in order in lieu of the amendment printed in part B of House Report 108-466 and numbered 3.