Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Texas for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I remind my colleagues that we created the SCHIP program 10 years ago in a bipartisan way to help insure low-income children who did not have access to high quality health insurance. Republicans continue to believe that we ought to have this program and that we ought to find a way to ensure low-income children have access to the kind of quality health care that our children enjoy.

This move today to delay the override of this veto is the most partisan political activity I have seen in this Congress all year. If you're really serious about trying to help children get access to low- cost health care, make sure that they have the insurance they need, we would have the veto override today, we would have it right this minute, and then we would start to sit down in a bipartisan way and work out our differences and ensure that we get low-income kids the kind of health care that they need.

Madam Speaker, yes, there are differences over this program. Some believe that having adults, and in some States, almost half the people involved in the program are adults, let's make sure that low-income kids, the target of this program, is met. But, no, we are not going to do that, unfortunately. We are going to do what the American people have said they are sick and tired of; we are going to do political games. That is what this delay is intended to do, to allow more time for the political games to go on, exactly what the American people have said they are sick and tired of.

Madam Speaker, I think we should have the vote today. Let's just go ahead and have the vote. We are going to sustain the President's veto. Then let's sit down together and do what the American people expect of us, and that is to make sure that this program is continued and children's health care in America is taken care of.

Let me thank my colleague from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, posted on the Speaker of the House's Web site at this moment is a document entitled ``A New Direction for America.'' In this document, the following statement is highlighted: Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives.

Last November when Democrats were preparing to take control of this Chamber, I appreciated something that Speaker Pelosi said. And I quote, ``The issue of civility, the principle of civility and respect for minority participation in this House is something that we

promised the American people. It is the right thing to do. And I set forth, over a number of years now, principles and respect for minority rights. And we intend to implement them.''

This statement was made almost a year ago at a press conference on November 20, 2006. Now, let's contrast those statements that were made and with what took place last night in the Rules Committee.

Seven Republican amendments were offered to the bill that we are about to debate, none made in order, including a bipartisan amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey; 13 Democrat amendments were made in order.

Now, the last time the flood insurance bill was on the floor of the House, which was in the 109th Congress, six Democrat amendments were made in order, one bipartisan amendment was made in order, and nine Republican amendments were made in order.

And if this isn't bad enough that the Republicans were denied any amendments in the bill that we have before us today, the majority also, in its rule, has waived the earmark reform rule again.

Now, yesterday when we had the SCHIP bill on the floor, there were earmarks in the bill. They weren't disclosed, they weren't outlined, and there was no way for Members to get at a debate or an amendment on those earmarks that were in this bill.

What assurances do American taxpayers have that there isn't some earmark in this bill that we have today? Because there is no list. But yet, the Rules Committee felt obliged to waive the earmark reform bill that was put in place earlier this year.

Now, the problem we have with the underlying rule is really part of the bigger problem. Last night, our Rules Committee Republicans put together a report outlining the number of closed rules that we have had in this House.

I was here in the early 1990s demanding that the minority ought to be treated more fairly. And clearly, when Republicans took majority control of this House, it may not have been everything everybody wanted, but there was more democracy in the House than what we have seen this year. And I just want to implore all of my colleagues that the American people sent us here to work together to solve the problems of this country. And yet, all year, as I have put my hand out to try to find a way to work in a bipartisan manner, it gets slapped away. That is not what the American people want of us. It is not what they deserve. And I would ask my colleagues to understand, many of you were here in the minority; you know exactly what I am talking about. It is time to be treating the minority the way you asked to be treated when you were in the minority.

I would ask my colleagues to defeat this rule, send it back to the committee, and let's do this in the fair, bipartisan way that the American people expect.

I want to thank my colleague from Virginia for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes tomorrow, September 11, as a day of remembrance. We extend the profound sympathies of this body to those who lost their loved ones in New York, at the Pentagon, and in the fields of Pennsylvania. This resolution also honors the firefighters and first responders who willingly risked or gave up their lives to save others on that fateful day. We also honor the sacrifice and heroism of our Armed Forces: the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, and the Marine Corps. Those men and women stand on the wall of freedom, and they are bravely fighting a determined enemy in the war on terror. They deserve our respect and our backing.

I can still remember how blue and peaceful that east coast sky was the morning of September 11, 2001, and how that peace was shattered by the attacks on our country. They say every generation of Americans has its challenge. The challenge of this generation became clear to all of us on that day. It was a day that forever changed us and the way we look at the world.

America was brutally attacked without mercy and without warning. We will never, ever forget those that we lost on that day. Republicans and Democrats must work together to ensure that our children and their children never have to live through another day like September 11, 2001.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I express my disappointment in having to oppose the gentleman's bill.

I know Members on both sides of the aisle have worked hard over the last few years, including efforts on my own behalf when I was chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, to help make college more affordable for more of America's students.

Most of us wouldn't be here had it not been for a chance at a decent education and a college education to allow us the opportunity to be all that we can be here in America.

I think all of us agree that we want these opportunities for all students.

That's why 18 months ago, when we passed the Deficit Reduction Act, we fundamentally reformed the college loan system and saved some $16 billion.

In that same bill we offered benefits for students, low-income students who would enter into an agreement to study math and science at 4-year institutions. I thought this was a sound bill, and we made sound efforts.

When I look at the bill before us, there are a number of concerns that I have. First is that the cuts to the private sector loan program that are involved in this bill, I think, will cripple the private sector loan program.

When you look at what the private sector has brought to students and their parents across the country, they have brought a lot of innovation. They have brought new ideas, new techniques to help more students and their families be able to afford a college education.

To cripple that, in my view, is an effort to drive more of those families and students to the direct loan program, this government-run program that, in my view, is misguided. I didn't support it, as my friend from California well knows, didn't support it when it happened some 16 years ago.

As we look at the direct loan program, it looked like a government- run program, with very few benefits for students and, clearly, not very cost-effective as well. That's my first concern.

My second concern is that we all around here, over the 17 years that I have been here, pledged fiscal responsibility. We have got to be careful about how we spend the taxpayers' funds.

When we look at the bill before us, we create five new entitlement programs. These are the programs that get put on automatic pilot. While they may be paid for here in the first 4 or 5 years, some of the provisions in this bill will cost 10 to $20 billion over the next 10 years that's not paid for. That's according to the CBO.

While we pledge fiscal responsibility, at the end of the day, we have to stand up and do it. You know, the American people send us here to make decisions on their behalf, and fiscal decisions on their behalf.

We ought to make those real decisions. But when you look at the real long-term cost of this program, I think it's not paid for, it's fiscally irresponsible. At a time when we are trying to balance the Federal budget, this is a step in the wrong direction.

I applaud my colleague from California, the chairman of the committee and my friend. We have worked together for a long time on these issues. I applaud him for his tenacity in putting this bill together.

There is no surprise to him nor me that we would disagree about the benefits of this bill. He sees his glass as half full; I see it as half empty. I really see it empty when it comes to the issue of being fiscally responsible and standing up to do the right things that the American people sent us here to do.

I would ask my colleagues, these are the hard decisions, well-meaning bill, well meaning, well intentioned, but, long term, I think it's a real mistake for students and taxpayers here in America.

Madam Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I come to the floor today and inform all of my colleagues that our colleague from Ohio, Paul Gillmor, passed away suddenly overnight.

Paul was a good friend to all of us, a colleague of mine who served in this House for nearly two decades after a long, distinguished career in the Ohio Senate. He was from Ohio, born there, raised there, went to school there. He is going to be missed by all of us.

I want to make sure that we keep Karen and his children in our thoughts in this very difficult time.

We will notify Members of the arrangements when they are made, but I would expect that later this afternoon the Members of the Ohio delegation from both sides of the aisle will be on the floor for a tribute to our friend.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the dean of our delegation for bringing this resolution to the floor, and thank my colleague from Cleveland, Mrs. Jones, for her enlightening remarks and lightening this up.

I was here earlier to announce Paul's passing to the House. I can remember the first time I met Paul Gillmor. I was a brand new State legislator. It was 1985, and it wasn't at the statehouse; it was down the street at the Pewter Mug.

Now, for those of us who served in the statehouse, we have all been to the Pewter Mug. That is where I got to know Paul Gillmor. He was the senate president; I was a lowly new house member, and Helen used to come over and wait on us. For those who came to the statehouse who went to the Pewter Mug, you would remember Helen, because you could never forget her, and she would never forget Paul.

But I got to know Paul Gillmor. In 1986, Paul decided to run for Governor in a Republican primary, and I was on his team. As a matter of fact, it might have been one of the first political checks I actually wrote was to Paul Gillmor when he ran for Governor. Unfortunately, he didn't win that primary election, but I really got to know Paul Gillmor.

He really was a public servant who enjoyed what he did, who enjoyed representing people, and someone that came to Congress right before I did. He came in 1988; I came in 1990. We have been close friends over the 17 years that we have worked here together. We worked on a number of issues.

Paul loved to understand what was happening around the world, and he certainly did his share of traveling to try to understand what was happening. But his work on the Energy and Commerce Committee, his work over in the Financial Services Committee will speak for itself.

But earlier this year, I think it was mentioned by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, earlier this year we lost our majority, we lost a number of seats, and Paul Gillmor took the magnanimous step of relinquishing his seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee to take a seat on the Financial Services Committee to help make room for other Members. It was that kind of kindness and consideration that I think all of us will remember about Paul Gillmor.

Karen and the children, our prayers are with you. Paul was a great servant, a great friend, and someone who we will all miss.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, welcome back to Washington. Most of us were home in our districts over the August district work period and heard from our constituents and heard from many others.

Clearly, as we get into the fall, there are a lot of very important issues that Congress is going to deal with. On the issue of what happens to Iraq, I would hope my colleagues would wait and listen to what General Petraeus and Admiral Crocker would have to say before we make up our minds and outline our strategy for where we are going to go.

Secondly, the issue of spending and taxes is clearly going to be coming up in October, and I would urge all of my colleagues to take a real serious look at just how much of the American taxpayer's wallet we are willing to get into and how much we really need to spend.

There are a host of other issues that we are going to deal with this fall, and I would have one more request of all of my colleagues: let's listen to what the American people had to say over the August recess. Let's find a way to reach our hands across the aisle and work in an honest way together to deal with what the American people expect of us, and that is to deal with the issues that face our country and to do it in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged resolution at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we live in a dangerous world. If you have read the National Intelligence Report or if you have read reports of it, you understand the growth of al Qaeda not only in the Middle East but around the world. You have read about other organizations in other parts of the world, radical jihadist movements aimed at killing Americans and our allies both here and abroad.

Our intelligence capabilities are the first line in our defense of providing safety and security to the American people and information to our troops around the world who are out there on the front lines being the beacons of hope and opportunity for those who live in very oppressed areas of the world.

Today all of us know that we have a gap in our intelligence-gathering operations. I believe that the bill we defeated last night was the right move on behalf of the House because it would not have provided our intelligence agencies the tools they needed to protect the American people and to provide the information to help protect our troops and to give them the information they need to win the war against terrorists.

I believe that the bill, crafted by our colleagues in the Senate in a bipartisan way, that we are dealing with here tonight does, in fact, give our intelligence agencies the tools they need to help keep Americans safe, to help provide the tools for our men and women around the world as they are out there doing their job to protect the American people and to win the war against terrorism.

We all know there is an increased threat of terrorism here in our country. We all know that we are expected to be more vigilant. Why should we tie the hands of our intelligence-gathering capability at a time when we are facing an increasing threat?

I believe that the bill we have here before us does give our agencies the tools they need. This bill is only for 6 months. Six months. We have a lot of work to do to modernize the underlying bill in order to put in place a system that allows us to collect the information we need while protecting the rights of the American people.

We are dealing with the right bill tonight. It deserves the support of all of our Members, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, in January, when this Congress began, there were promises of the most open and ethical Congress in the history of our country. Over the last several weeks, I have been up on numerous occasions talking about the problems of how I believe the minority had been treated, only asking for fairness.

What happened last night not only disenfranchised minority Members, it disenfranchised Members of the majority party as well who had an interest in voting for that measure. I regret what happened last night. I think that it is very unfortunate. But it has been a pattern of activity that has gone on all year.

I think my colleagues on the majority side understand what I am saying. There were promises made, there were commitments made; and not only has none of it happened, but some of the actions taken by the majority over the last 7 months were actions that had never even been contemplated during the 12 years of Republican rule.

Now, I understand there were times when Republicans did things that were heavy-handed, and, in fact, I can understand why the minority was aggrieved at the time. But when you think about the opening several weeks, when we had one rule covering six bills, no amendments, one motion to recommit for six bills, things that we would have never even dreamt of doing have happened. But it has been time after time after time.

When we look at the activities of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, how there were no hearings, the size of the bill and then the conditions under which it was going to be brought to the floor, I think it was the straw that broke the camel's back. At least, I thought it was the straw that broke the camel's back, until last night.

The resolution that we are debating takes this issue and sends it to the Ethics Committee. As we all know, that is the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that is referred to. Now, that, to me, does not appear, on the surface, to be the right place to send this issue. We all know about the problems of the Ethics Committee. Sending it to the Ethics Committee is sending it into what most people would describe as a ``black hole.''

Back in January, I suggested in a private meeting with the Speaker that I wanted the Ethics Committee to work, and the only way it was going to work was that if she and I locked arms and told our Members and told the American people that we are going to ensure that the Ethics Committee work.

That hasn't happened. The fact is, the productivity, I don't know whether

there is productivity or lack of productivity in the Ethics Committee, because we have not seen anything out of the Ethics Committee thus far this year.

I would suggest to the gentleman that if you are serious about getting to the bottom of what happened and serious about preserving the integrity of the House and ensuring that there is no disenfranchisement of Members on either side of the aisle, that a conversation between the two of us, or the two leaderships, might be a better course of action for the entire House.

I have a privileged resolution that I have drawn up that would set up a select committee of Members to deal with only this issue. It may be, I think, a wiser course of action. I would be happy to discuss this with the gentleman.

I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that what happened last night happened last night, and that if we could have a commitment of getting to the bottom of what happened last night, that we ought to proceed with the business that the American people sent us here to deal with.

Now, I know that there are those on my side of the aisle, and probably some on the other side of the aisle, who would rather fight all day. But at the end of the day, our responsibility is to the American people. This is the people's House.

I accept the regrets offered by my friend from New York. Having been in the chair myself, I understand how it can happen. He and I are friends. In fact, he is one of the fairest Members who could ever be in the chair. But we need to have some understanding early today, if in fact we are going to proceed today in an orderly fashion, that we are going to do it in a way that dignifies this institution and dignifies our responsibility to the American people to do their work.

So I would ask my friend if he would consider withdrawing the resolution that he has on the floor, allow us an opportunity to sit down and discuss this, and see if we can't come to some mutually agreeable way to proceed on the issue of what happened and how we preserve the integrity of the House and the rights of all Members.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the whole point of the suggestion that I made that we withdraw this to go into a conversation or negotiation where the gentleman has 10 cards in his hand and I have one clearly would put me and my colleagues at a disadvantage.

I would be happy to hold off on the resolution that I was planning on offering and look forward to our conversations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to proceed with caution. We all know that it has been a tough week. We all know that we are right up against the August recess. And we all know there is a lot of passion in the room.

I don't know what the order of the House will be today. I heard some discussion about going to the Defense appropriation bill. But I would ask my colleagues that we do our work in a businesslike fashion, that we treat each other with respect, and that we proceed in a way that the American people would be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman for an update on the schedule.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, is the gentleman planning on having legislation on the floor tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I could suggest to the majority leader that in the interest of the House and in the interest of trying to find a way to proceed today, that we might recess the House for a few minutes so that we can have this discussion that we have been referring to.

Fine.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

There is a motion that has been made by the majority leader to vacate the vote. I think we should proceed with a unanimous consent and recess to fix the machine and come back and vote when the machine is ready for us to vote.

Madam Speaker, I have a privileged resolution at the desk.

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

I think the resolution that I offer outlines pretty clearly the promises that have been made and the promises I believe that have been broken over the course of the last 7 months. What we seek here is to understand exactly what did happen last night and to what extent changes in the rules need to be made to ensure that all Members are treated fairly.

As was stated in the resolution, myself and my colleagues in the minority believe that, in fact, we won the motion to recommit last night. We asked to bring this resolution that a select committee do, in fact, be impaneled, three Members from each side of the aisle to understand clearly what happened, but also to understand whether there are any changes in the rules that need to be made in order to ensure that all Members are treated fairly.

I and others have begun to believe that there's been a pattern of abuse that has occurred over the last several months. In many of these occurrences it appears the Chair is operating on their own, with little regard to the recommendations of the Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarians are here to preserve the precedents of the House and to ensure that all Members are treated fairly.

And as we watched the tape from last night, we watched from activities earlier this week, watched activities, frankly, earlier today that a pattern of activity continues to occur, and I believe that it's important for this select committee that, if it is created, to not only understand what happened last night, but to understand clearly are there any other changes that need to be made to ensure that all Members' voices are, in fact, heard.

We outline a select committee, we outline a timing for an interim report, but it's something that I believe would be in the best interests of the House, and I would urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Last night, when the gentleman from New York was in the chair and beginning to call the question and the electronic board moved to 215- 213, my observation of the well of the House is that there was no one in the well of the House attempting to vote at that moment. It's why my colleagues and I, many of us, believed that we won. I think it's fair to say, many of my colleagues and I feel as though the vote was taken from us.

I understand the disagreement, and I appreciate the gentleman coming to an agreement on this Select Committee to get to the bottom of it.

But this morning's conversation was, well, we will talk about it. I am sorry, we could be talking about it for months.

I wanted to bring this resolution to the floor tonight so that there could be real action on this issue. We don't want to sit around here for months and months and talk about it and never come to some agreement and it's all over and done with. I think our Members want to get to the bottom of it as quickly as possible, and I am glad that the gentleman has agreed with us.

If the gentleman would like to work out some resolution dividing the question on the resolution before us, I would be happy to do it. Because at the end of the day, what we want is we want to get to the bottom of what happened and are there any necessary changes that need to be made in order to protect the rights of all Members.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the minority whip, Mr. Blunt.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work of the majority leader, and for the benefit of all Members basically, the motion that the gentleman offers would strike the ``whereases'' contained in the resolution and leave the resolved clauses in place.

I appreciate his support and hope this will allow us to move on.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a privileged resolution at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order that the gentleman from Maryland engaged in debate.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, isn't it correct that the gentleman from Maryland engaged in debate, which allows the House to then proceed with up to 1 hour of debate on this resolution?

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from California for yielding.

I come to the floor today to express my disappointment over where this process has led us and the fact that we are going to shut down the appropriations process and go to what we would refer to as martial law.

Now over the last several days it has become clear that our Members are concerned about what has happened to the process of due deliberation in the House. Over the last several days my name has been taken in vain over the fact that there was an agreement reached earlier this year between Mr. Hoyer and myself and Mr. Obey. And there was an agreement we would bring earmark reform to the appropriation process, and as part of that agreement that we would work towards a unanimous consent request on each of the appropriation bills.

I want to tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, tell my friend from Wisconsin that I feel as though I have kept my part of the deal. I have worked diligently with our Members to try to come to an agreement that our Members felt was fair. The gentleman outlined the number of hours that we have taken on the appropriations bills this year. There is no question that more time has been taken. And that is because we have had a change in the majority here in Congress. We have had a serious change in each of the appropriation bills in terms of the priorities of the new majority versus the priorities of the former majority. So one would expect that more time was going to be taken on these appropriations bills this year.

But what brought all of this to an end was the process by which the State Children's Health Insurance reauthorization was coming to the floor where our Members were shut out of debate, where we were presented with a 488-page bill at 11:30 one night and expected to be in committee the next day ready to have committee action on a bill that had never ever had a hearing.

Now as I mentioned to the gentleman the other night, all we seek on this side is fairness. And so the tactics employed on the Ag appropriations bill the other night was an opportunity for our Members to try to come down and talk about their concerns with the process and their concerns with that work product.

But the actions taken here today to shut the whole appropriations process down, lock it under a rule, self-execute six amendments into this process is unprecedented. I heard the gentleman over the last several years talk about process and how the minority ought to be treated. I heard it day after day.

And I might add to my friend that I had some sympathy for the concerns that he raised. But as I mentioned the other night, all we seek is to be treated the way you asked to be treated. That's all we ask. We could have had a discussion about trying to come to a unanimous consent request on the balance of this bill. We could have sat down and tried to work through the process on the Defense appropriation bill so we wouldn't have to go through this; but that opportunity wasn't presented. So I stand here today with regret that we have had to come to this point.

I am one who believes that there is a way we can disagree on our policy differences here without being disagreeable; that there is a way that the two sides can make their points without cutting the legs off the other side.

But the actions here that are being taken will do nothing more than stifle the ability of the minority to make its

case, the minority who represent nearly half of American people, to effectively make our case on this bill, and I think it is regrettable.