Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today pursuant to this order, it adjourn to meet at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, November 17, 2006, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 496, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, December 6, 2006.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, just to give everyone as much information as I have, after this series of votes we will move to a series of suspension votes. We are expecting to have a port security conference report available some time this evening.

I wish I could give you a more exact time. I expect that we could see this at 9 to 10 o'clock in the Rules Committee, or somewhere in that vicinity, and have it on the floor and hopefully be finished by midnight.

I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Maryland.

I would expect that the port security vote around midnight would be the last vote for the day.

I do expect that will be our last vote, we will complete our work, and I will have met my commitment to all of you.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

After this series of votes, we have a series of suspensions. Any votes that may be called, we will roll and take at the time of the vote on the rule for the port security bill.

It will be sometime closer to 10:30 or 11 o'clock.

There will be no votes until probably closer to 11.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I think all of us realize this is a very serious matter. We have not seen this resolution nor known of its contents until this moment; and, given the seriousness of the matter, I would ask that the House refer this issue to the Committee on Ethics immediately.

Again, this is a very serious matter, and I think we all realize it is a serious matter, but I would ask we do this under the rules of the House. Referring this to the Ethics Committee is the appropriate place to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give all Members an update on where we are so Members can make their travel arrangements if they would like to.

I believe that we are going to be able to complete all of our work by the end of tomorrow. I would like to be able to tell you it is going to be 4 o'clock or 6 o'clock or 8 o'clock or midnight. I can't do that, so don't ask. But here is what I would expect our schedule is for tomorrow.

We are completing the action on the terrorist surveillance bill tonight.

Tomorrow we expect a same-day rule, and Private Property Rights Implementation will be considered tomorrow. We believe the Department of Homeland Security appropriations conference report will be up tomorrow. The terrorist tribunal bill that we passed yesterday, the identical bill passed the Senate today; but under the rules we will likely take up the terrorist tribunal bill here tomorrow. And we have in conference the SAFE Ports Act which is moving along and could be considered tomorrow. We also have the DOD authorization bill which could be considered tomorrow.

So I am trying to do my best in giving all the Members, and I see my friend Mr. Miller over there smiling at me, I am trying to give Members as much notice as I can. But I do expect that I will meet the commitment that I have made to all of you over the last couple of months that we will be finished tomorrow, and I hope tomorrow doesn't last any longer than it has to.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 483) providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding.

We all know that in the years since 9/11 we have been focused on one vital goal, and that is stopping terrorist attacks before they happen.

I want to commend Chairman Hunter and Chairman Sensenbrenner for their work on this piece of legislation. I think we all know that to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, we need to be able to interrogate terrorist suspects, find out what they know, and put them on trial.

After 9/11, President Bush vowed to devote his Presidency to protecting the American people, and he vowed to use every tool at his disposal under the law to fight the terrorists and attack them before they attack us.

If we are serious about stopping terrorist attacks before they happen, the ability to extract information from terrorist suspects and put them on trial is essential.

President Bush put together a system to accomplish these goals after 9/11. We have captured some of the world's most dangerous terrorists. But now our efforts are on hold because of a Supreme Court decision in June and that without congressional authorization, the Federal Government lacks the authority to use military tribunals for these suspected terrorists.

In the wake of this Court decision, Congress has a choice. We can do nothing and allow the terrorists in U.S. custody to go free or to go into a trial meant for American civilians; or we can authorize tribunals for terrorists, find out what they know, and bring them to justice.

This bill will allow us to continue to gather important intelligence information from foreign terrorists caught in battle or caught while plotting attacks on America. As President Bush has said, the information we have learned from captured terrorists ``has helped us to take potential mass murderers off the streets before they were able to kill us.''

We know these interrogations have provided invaluable intelligence information that has thwarted terrorist attacks and has saved American lives. This bill allows Congress to draw the parameters for detaining and bringing to justice terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the driving force behind the terrorist attacks of September 11. The bill will provide clear guidance for Americans who are interrogating the terrorist suspects on behalf of our country. It will preserve this crucial program while meeting our commitments and obligations under the Geneva Conventions. It will also help us meet a 9/11 Commission recommendation that America develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists.

We recognize military tribunals play a critical role in helping us fight the global war on terror, and we will give these tools to our President as he fights to help keep all of us safe.

But the real question today is, what will my colleagues, my Democrat colleagues, do when it comes to this vote today?

Virtually every time the President asks Congress for the tools he needs to stop terrorist attacks, a majority of my Democrat friends have said ``no.'' Democrats by and large voted ``no'' on establishing the Department of Homeland Security in July of 2002.

A majority of Democrats voted ``no'' on additional funds to respond to the attacks of September 11 and bolster homeland security efforts in May of 2002. The majority of the Democrats voted ``yes'' to deny funding for law enforcement to carry out provisions of the PATRIOT Act in July of 2004. And a majority of Democrats voted ``no'' on the REAL ID Act, which makes it difficult for terrorists to travel freely throughout the United States, in February of 2005. And Democrats voted ``no'' on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, and gloated about killing it, in December of 2005.

And more recently, many Democrats voted against a resolution condemning the illegal leaks of classified intelligence information that could impair our fight against terrorism. Democrats voted ``no'' in the Judiciary Committee against allowing the terrorist surveillance program to go forward. And the

Democrats in the Judiciary Committee voted ``no'' on this bill as well.

So the question is, will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to preserve this crucial program or oppose giving the President the tools that he needs to protect the American people? Will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to give the President the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, or will they vote to force him to fight the terrorists with one arm tied behind his back?

Now, I do not, and will never, question the integrity or the patriotism of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is about giving our President the tools he needs to wage war against terrorists who are trying to kill us. And I hope that we will stand together this week and vote to give our President the tools that we need to fight and win in our war against terrorists all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further proceedings today in the House, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that otherwise could be subjected to 5-minute voting under clause 8 or 9 of rule XX.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further proceedings today, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that otherwise could be subjected to 5-minute voting under clause 8 or 9 of rule XX.

I thank my colleague from Maryland for yielding.

Next week, Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Monday at 12:30 for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. No votes will occur before 6:30 on Monday evening. We will have a number of measures considered under suspension of the rules. We will have a final list of those bills to Members' offices by tomorrow afternoon.

For the balance of the week, the House will consider H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act; H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act; H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act; H.R. 5631, Department of Defense appropriations conference report; the National Institutes of Health reauthorization bill; H.R. 5313, Open Space and Farmland Preservation Act; and H.R. 5092, the BATFE Modernization and Reform Act of 2006.

In addition to that, I would note that a conference report may be brought up at any time, and I expect to see H.R. 5122, the Sonny Montgomery National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 conference report.

In addition to these, we do hope to have suspension authority for all of next week to try to accommodate Members who have suspension items on both sides of the aisle. It is expected that there will be many suspensions next week, and I want to prepare Members for that.

Likely they will.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

I have told Members and have told you for months that we will be finished on the 29th. We will be finished on the 29th. Now, how long the 29th lasts, I don't know. But I would expect that we would be here on the evening of the 29th and hopefully not much longer than that.

If the gentleman would yield, we have both been here long enough to know that that last day before the recess for the election lasts a little longer than an average day.

It is.

I would expect that we would have votes all that week, including the 17th. But once you get beyond there, it really is unclear as to when we will be back. I have been working with the Senate leadership trying to come to some understanding. We have not come to any agreement or understanding. But I can say this. If we cannot complete our work by Thanksgiving, which in my view is doubtful, that the House would be off the week of Thanksgiving and the following week and would come back the week of December 4 for a week or two to finish our business.

I think that is the most realistic schedule that I see. Is it firm? Nowhere close. But in terms of trying to be helpful to Members as they plan, that is as helpful as I can be with the knowledge that I have today.

I do not.

I am not sure that there is any definitive answer on that. We do have this interstate notification bill up next week. There was some consideration to the unborn child pain bill that some Members have been hoping to get up. At this point I do not expect to have it on the floor next week. But at this point that is as much information as I have.

Which of the several hundred bills that Members have asked me to bring to the floor next week would you like to know about?

If the gentleman would yield, we are working with Members on both sides of the aisle who have issues that have been through committee or are almost through committee that they would like to bring to the floor. As typically happens, I and my staff will work closely with you and your staff to schedule those so everyone has fair notice and we have gone through the usual scrubbing process.

I am not familiar with the bill, but I will be happy to take a look at it.

That's right. We are still talking about it.

The gentleman is aware there are some problems with the bill. We have been having conversations about trying to solve those problems. I don't expect it to be on the floor next week.

With regard to raising the minimum wage, the House did, in fact, vote on that in late July. We sent it to the Senate where it remains under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding, and thank him and the Speaker for their tremendous work on this rule change.

Mr. Speaker, today is an important day for the House as an institution. There has been much written this year about the practice of earmarking, which has allowed lawmakers to anonymously insert spending projects into bills without scrutiny or significant debate. It is a major source of frustration, I think, for the American people, and for those of us who believe that we need greater accountability and transparency in the way Congress works.

Earlier this year, I, along with many of my colleagues, called for reforms to this earmark process. We need a process where we can determine what are worthy projects and distinguish those from worthless pork. These reforms before us will help accomplish that goal so unworthy projects can be publicly identified, debated and, hopefully, weeded out.

I think the reforms before us are very straightforward. They specify that if the House considers a bill which includes earmarks, it must be accompanied by a list identifying those earmarks as well as the names of the Members who requested them. The reforms also ensure that in the case of a conference report, the list includes any earmarks that were what we call ``air-dropped,'' or in other words, not included in either the House or Senate bills.

No longer will Members, the media or average taxpayers have to thumb through pages of legislative and report language looking for earmarks that are sometimes added at the eleventh hour. This information will be publicly available for everyone to see.

I think it is simple common sense. If you request a project, you ought to be willing to put your name on it, and if you aren't willing to put your name on a project, you shouldn't expect the American people to pay for it.

Fulfilling a commitment made by Republican leaders earlier this year to treat everyone equally, these reforms will apply to all committees, authorizers, appropriators and tax writers alike. The goal here is to bring earmarking out of the shadows and into the light of public scrutiny. These reforms will bring sunshine and transparency to the earmark process, resulting in greater accountability for lawmakers and greater public confidence in how their taxpayer dollars are spent.

Importantly, it also likely will result in fewer earmarks, building on the progress already made by leaders such as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Jerry Lewis. This year during the appropriations process, there were 37 percent fewer earmarks than the year before and the cost of those earmarks has been reduced by some $7.8 billion.

Earmark reform is just one component of Republicans' larger effort to promote fiscal discipline and ensure that Congress spends America's taxpayer dollars wisely.

I thank my friend and colleague from Maryland for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, next week, the House will convene Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. There are a number of items on the suspension calendar. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by tomorrow afternoon.

For the balance of the week, the House will consider H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act, from the Committee on Armed Services; and H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act, from the Committee on House Administration. The House will also consider additional legislation on border security, including providing for more Border Patrol agents, stricter enforcement, enhancing State and local law enforcement authority.

I would also like to note conference reports may be brought up at any time, and I expect to see H.R. 5122, the Sonny Montgomery National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, a conference report, and hopefully we will have that passed next week.

About Friday votes, I know Members want to get home in time next Friday for Rosh Hashanah, and I am working to make that happen. But to do that, I believe we will be in very late on Thursday.

So I would suggest to Members that if they want to make flight arrangements for first thing on Friday morning, that would be the safe thing to do, but I do expect that we will be in late on Thursday in order to complete our work for the week.

That is correct.

This bill was reported out of the House Administration Committee some time ago. I imagine we will see an announcement out of the Rules Committee in terms of when their hearing is and whether they will call for amendments. But I would expect that announcement to come from the Rules Committee.

I am expecting that next week, and possibly as early and going into the following week, we may have two or three packages of issues that are intended to help strengthen our border. As the gentleman is aware, we have done a lot over the last 4 or 5 years to strengthen the border, adding additional Border Patrol agents, fencing, all types of technology.

We now have the National Guard down on the border. But we believe that there are a number of smaller issues that we can work with the Senate on and possibly include in the Homeland Security appropriations conference report. We talked about it today earlier in a press event. A list of those bills will be available, should be available by now.

The terrorist surveillance program is expected to be marked up next week in the Judiciary Committee, which I would then suspect would be on the floor the week thereafter.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

There are conversations continuing about that bill. There are still some issues in that bill. Those conversations are continuing, but no decisions have been made.

I am well aware of it, yes.