Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow, and further, that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 19, 2006, 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 for yielding the time, and today, the people's House has taken up legislation marking the 5-year anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

We remember the lives of the victims, the many moms, dads, children, grandparents, friends and neighbors,

and we honor the police officers and the firefighters, and we salute their bravery and the sacrifices of these rescue workers, the EMT personnel and first responders who were there that day.

We offer America's sons and daughters in uniform our deepest gratitude, many of them on the other side of the world sacrificing so much so very far away from home.

Words can hardly capture the magnitude of horror that we suffered on that Tuesday morning 5 years ago. Much like finding out about the bombing of Pearl Harbor or the assassination of President Kennedy, all of us remember exactly where we were when we first heard that multiple planes had attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in a massive, elaborate and coordinated attack from terrorists.

On September 11, 2001, we came face-to-face with evil but it was not the first time. During the 1990s, enemies of freedom used terror and violence in futile attempts to intimidate the United States and other countries around the world in the cause of freedom.

On February 26, 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people and injured more than 1,000 others.

On June 25, 1996, the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia killed 20 people and injured 372 more.

On June 7, 1998, the Kenya embassy bombing killed 213 people and injured some 5,000 others.

On June 7, the same day, our embassy in Tanzania was bombed, killing 11 people and injuring 68.

And then on October 12, 2000, the USS Cole was bombed off the coast of Yemen, killing 17 people and injuring 39.

What was our response? During the 1990s, world leaders looked up at the problem of radical Islamic terrorism, they looked up, they looked away, and they hoped the problem would go away. This reaction led al Qaeda and others to believe they could attack us repeatedly, indefinitely and with impunity.

But they were wrong. On September 11, the terrorists targeted symbols of American strength and prosperity as an attack on our principles, our values, and our freedoms as an American people. Their aim was to shake our will and to intimidate our allies. But as the skies darkened over New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, we made a simple vow: never again.

In a post-9/11 world, doing nothing is no longer an option. In a post-9/11 world, closing your eyes and hoping for the best is not an option. In a post-9/11 world, weakness in the face of evil is not an option.

Five years later, we have made significant progress in confronting those who would attack us again. When he addressed Congress in the days immediately following the attacks, President Bush said: ``Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.'' We have done just that.

Unlike the previous strikes by al Qaeda against our embassies, the USS Cole, and so on, September 11 brought a broad and global response from the United States. Congress acted swiftly in approving the USA PATRIOT Act, legislation providing law enforcement with the tools necessary to prevent another attack. We have waged two conflicts, one in Afghanistan, another in Iraq, liberating more than 50 million people and crushing despotic regimes with links to terrorist activities and a thirst for weapons of mass destruction.

We have more work to do, but our progress has been steady, and it has been measurable. The U.S. Department of Justice has convicted 253 defendants on terror-related charges, and our intelligence agencies and law enforcement working together have disrupted more than 150 terrorist threats and cells here in America, including plans to attack targets on both coasts using hijacked aircraft and plans to blow up apartment buildings here in our country.

Just last month, British and American intelligence officials, using the sort of tools we provided President Bush, thwarted a plot to bomb multiple American airliners headed from London.

This resolution today affirms the commitment of Congress to remain vigilant in efforts to provide law enforcement and our Armed Forces with all the tools necessary to fight and win the global war on terrorism. We have engaged in dramatic efforts to secure our ports and borders, with legislation on the way that will provide more Border Patrol agents, additional fencing and surveillance, and enhanced State and local law enforcement authority.

The House will vote next week on legislation authorizing military tribunals for terrorists, such as the alleged September 11 mastermind, Khalid Shaykh Mohammad. We are designing a system that not only brings these terrorists to justice but gives the President the tools that he needs to continue preventing terrorist plots before they happen.

Prevention must be the standard and prevention must be our goal. No longer can we simply respond to attacks. We must actively engage the enemy and seek to disrupt and thwart their twisted plans. We must continue to adapt and move forward, we must not yield, we must not grow complacent, and we must not rest until this threat is vanquished.

September 11 revealed for all to see the ruthless barbarity of an enemy that wishes to end America's way of life. Most of the nearly 3,000 who perished were regular folks going about their regular business. Others were the first heroes of the war on terror, climbing the stairs to the Twin Towers to help evacuate trapped workers or administering first aid to those at the scene. All of them were victims of a radical and poisonous ideology that we must be eternally committed to defeating.

This is our defining task in the early years of the 21st century, crushing the deadly and poisonous ideology of radical terrorism, and freeing from tyranny the millions threatened with its bondage is an effort for which the United States and her allies are uniquely suited. We are the primary target of radical terrorists, the leader of nations, with the capability and the fortitude to wage a prolonged fight. In my view, we must not shy away, if only so our children and their children may live in peace.

One of the last lines in the ``Battle Hymn of the Republic'' goes: ``As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free.'' I can think of no better tribute to those who perished in the merciless attacks of September 11 or in the 5 years since than to do just that: to live and to fight for the freedoms that we cherish and for which they have all given their lives

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further proceedings today in the House and in the Committee of the Whole, 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 or under clause 6 of rule XVIII.

I want to thank my colleague from Maryland for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, next week the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

We will consider a number of measures under the suspension of the rules next Tuesday. We expect to have a final list of those measures to Members' offices by tomorrow afternoon.

For the balance of the week, the House will consider on Wednesday the 5-year anniversary of 9/11, and we will have a resolution on the floor, and we will also begin consideration of H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act.

On Thursday and Friday, we will complete consideration of the Federal Prison Industries bill, and we will consider a House resolution amending the House rules on earmark reform. I would also note that conference reports may be brought up at any time, and hope to see H.R. 5122, the Sonny Montgomery National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007 conference report and I hope to see it passed next week. At this point, Members should anticipate that we will have votes on Friday.

I also have an announcement in terms of the schedule. Members have a schedule through September. It is expected that the House will not be back in session until the week of November 13. I do want Members to know that the House will be in session that week. I expect we will have votes on Monday the 13th and through that week. Anything further on the schedule beyond that time, I wish I could tell Members, but I don't know.

That is correct.

Somebody else was having those discussions with themselves, not with me.

If the gentleman will yield, it is possible that the House could complete its work by Thursday night. It is possible. But I don't want to mislead Members. At this point, I believe that Members should expect votes on Friday. If it becomes clear during the week that we will be able to complete our work, I will give Members as much notice as possible. But I don't want to promise something that we can't deliver.

I will work with you to accommodate our Members who want to observe this religious holiday. I do understand the problem for Members on the West Coast. We will work with you to come to some resolution. We don't want to put any Members in a difficult travel position when it comes to observance of their religious holidays.

I have not had a chance to read the resolution either, and you have not read the resolution. All I do know is that both Democrats and Republicans have worked closely together to develop the resolution. Again, I will be happy to take a look at it. And I would suggest to the gentleman, if you have any suggestions or concerns, let me know.

The issue is under discussion. As the gentleman knows, there are a number of issues in that bill that have caused concern amongst Members. And while one of those appears to have been resolved, there are a number of other issues remaining there. There have been several discussions this week and I think there will be several more discussions next week about how to deal with that particular bill.

I think the gentleman is well aware that in July before the House went on its August district work period, the House voted to raise the minimum wage, and this bill is pending in the Senate and I am hopeful that the Senate will see fit to deal with it.

Will the gentleman yield?

We have rules in the House about legislating on an appropriations bill, and it is clear that the intent of the author was to legislate on an appropriations bill. I think the majority did the right thing by moving the authorizing language for the minimum wage through the Rules Committee and brought it to the House floor.

So, again, the House has dealt with this. I am hopeful that the Senate will deal with it soon

Over a year ago, the House worked to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. And I believe that Members on both sides of the Capitol, on both sides of the aisle, decided to accept those recommendations that we thought would be helpful. Not all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission have, in fact, been adopted because, as I understand it, Members on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol have rejected some of the ideas that they put forth.

As we all know, some of these independent commissions get established. They can make recommendations, but the real decisions about what we should enact into law should be left to the Members, and I think the Members have made their decisions very clear.

Will the gentleman yield?

Just so the gentleman understands, and I appreciate his yielding, I am happy to come here and have this colloquy with you about what is going to be on the floor and give you as much information as I can.

Now, I see that my friend from Maryland today has decided to employ a new tactic in bringing campaign themes to the floor during the colloquy. Now, I would be happy to engage in those, but it is not what the colloquy is for. And so I would be happy to engage the gentleman.

The Medicare drug bill has produced premiums for seniors far below, far below, any number that anyone ever expected. And what got us those low drug premium prices was the competition that was created in the creation of the program.

Secondly, when it comes to the college loan program that the gentleman referred to that there were cuts, if the gentleman would look at the bill, he will realize that we widened the ability of more students to get to college under this program than we have ever had. The fact is there are higher numbers for grant programs, higher numbers for what you can borrow from the program, and it could not be working any better. And as a result, the Deficit Reduction Act that we passed last year did, in fact, save $12.5 billion that came out of the hides of the lenders who were involved in the program.

So, again, I would be happy to engage you in this conversation, but we could probably do it under a Special Order rather than during the colloquy.

I thank my colleague. And while we may differ on whether the glass is half full or half empty, I do have great respect for my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. tomorrow and further, that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 12, 2006, 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 for yielding.

And, Mr. Miller, let me say hello to you and thank you for your loyal opposition. Even though over the last 7 years that we have worked on this project together, much of what is in here you should be very proud of because you and Mr. Andrews, Mr. Thomas, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Johnson, and others, all of us, over the last 6 or 7 years, have spent a lot of time bringing this bill together.

And I am pleased that this bill is on the floor tonight. It could be here in a different form. It could be here in a different way. But the fact is that we have worked together in a bipartisan way to craft a very good bill to protect American workers' pensions.

Simply put, I think these reforms that we have put in place tonight represent the most sweeping changes to America's pension system in 30 years. And they will ensure that workers and retirees can continue to count on their hard-earned retirement benefits. And these reforms, I think, deserve the support of every Member in this House.

Over the past few years, we have seen more and more companies get out of their pension system, freeze their pension plan, go bankrupt, turn it over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and put the pension benefits for American workers in jeopardy. And what we are attempting to do tonight, in a bipartisan way, is to protect the American workers and the benefits that they have earned and try to make sure that the commitments that companies make to their workers are kept. And the way to do that is to make sure that we put more money into these pension funds.

Now, my friend from California, who was down here arguing against this bill, had a two-sided argument. One, the bill is too strong. We are going to require companies to put more money into their pension plans, and as a result, they are going to freeze their plans. Yet on the other hand, he is complaining that we are not protecting the interests of the American worker. Now, we spent years on this, both of us together, and we know the only way you get there is to walk a very fine line, to make sure that promises made to American workers are kept, that plans are better funded, and that we try to prevent a taxpayer bailout of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

As my colleague from California said, 7 years ago, when I was bounced out of the Republican leadership after the 1998 election, I became chairman of the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee of the Education and the Workforce Committee, a subcommittee most of you have never heard of. And my ranking member was my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, and we began a series of hearings in 1999 to uncover what was happening in the pension system in America today. And we had dozens of hearings and worked hard. And some of the things that we learned, I think we have dealt with very comprehensively in this bill.

The bill ensures that employers better fund their pension plans. It closes loopholes that allow underfunded plans to skip their pension payments. It prohibits employers and union leaders from digging the hole even deeper by promising extra benefits when their plans are severely underfunded. The bill enhances disclosure to give workers and retirees more information about the condition of their own pension fund that they are a member of. It protects taxpayers from a multi-billion dollar bailout of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. It better protects multi-employer pension plans for both workers and the employers who fund them. And it gives access to critical investment advice for those who have 401(K) plans and IRAs.

I want to also mention the last issue, the fact that one of the issues I have worked on for these 7 years and never given up on is trying to get critical investment advice into those who have self- directed plans. My colleague from Massachusetts sits over there with a smile on his face because we worked on this together, although he disagrees with me. He is still my friend. But helping those who have to make decisions in their 401(k) plan or their IRA is critically important if we want to help them get the type of retirement security that they want for themselves. We all know that many of these plans are underfunded.

There is not enough diversification in their portfolios, and if we don't get real investment advice and personalized investment advice into their hands, we know they are not going to have the type of retirement that they are expecting. Thankfully, those provisions are included in this bill to help make sure that investment advice gets there.

Another big issue is bringing legal certainty to those cash balance plans, these hybrid plans. It is not a defined benefit plan; it is not a 401(K). And over 2,000 companies in America today have these hybrid pension plans, and they are in some legal jeopardy. And I think we have struck the right balance in this legislation to protect the interest of older workers that are in defined benefit plans as these conversions take place.

Now, not every Member favors every provision of this bill, as my friend from California pointed out. And if I had to write this bill myself, it would be different than what we see today. The fact is that I think we have made good on our promise to help American workers keep their retirement benefits they have earned, to make sure that those commitments are kept.

I want to thank my friend from California, Chairman Bill Thomas, whom I have worked on this proposal with for the last 5 years. We all know Bill is a sweet, lovable human being. This is his last year as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. And I have got to tell you that all of us in the House, whether we agree with Bill or disagree with Bill every day, Bill is someone who works hard, puts his mind to it, and no one has worked harder in bringing this bill to the floor tonight than my colleague and friend from California, Mr. Thomas.

Also I want to thank Chairman McKeon, the man who took my place as Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee some 6 months ago, for his hard work.

I want to thank my staff. Stacey Dion, Stacey, everybody that has worked on this knows Stacey. She has been one of the principal authors of this. I want to thank Paula Nowakowski, Jo-Marie St. Martin, Kevin Smith, Mike Sommers, Greg Maurer, Dave Schnittger and George Canty on my staff for all of their work on this bill now and in the past.

I also have to thank some of my former staff on the Education and the Workforce Committee, Ed Gilroy, Steve Forde, Jim Paretti and Steve Perrotta, for all of the work they have done continuing to assist not only me when I was chairman, but Mr. McKeon as well.

Let me also thank the staff from the Ways and Means Committee and our Democrat staff who have worked hard over many years to get us to this point.

This is a very important bill. I think all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know it is a very important bill.

When we started this process, Mr. Andrews and I in 1999, it wasn't many months into this when we asked ourselves, why haven't these laws been cleaned up and straightened out? Well, Mr. Andrews, I can tell you, I found out why, because it is hard work and there are a lot of people who have a lot of different interests.

But at the end of the day, the work that we started I think is going to pay dividends tonight, because what we have here is a process and a product that has been developed together that will in fact meet the goals that we set out to do. And it wouldn't have happened without the work of a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill, to defeat the motion to recommit, and move this bill to the Senate and on to the President's desk.

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

There is a very delicate balance in this bill. My colleague from California talked about the airline provisions. I am going to talk about one of the most important provisions in this bill, and that is the protection for hybrid plans, or cash balance pension plans.

This was a very difficult issue in the House; it was a very difficult issue in the conference. It has been worked out in a bipartisan way to the satisfaction of those on the farthest on the left in the Senate and the farthest on the right in the House. And to rewrite this provision in a motion to recommit I think is irresponsible.

I would say to my colleagues who have worked on this bipartisan pension bill for a long time, the balance of this bill is right. Let's support the underlying bill and reject the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of Members are interested in what the schedule is. I think all of you know that today we will move to consider the conference report on the Carl Perkins vocational education program. We will then move to the health IT bill. We expect that that will take us to late afternoon/early evening.

The reason I stood up is that it is pretty clear that we are in fact going to have votes tomorrow. There are a number of Members, though, from New York who want to go to former Representative Tom Manton's funeral. We will work with those Members to carve out a window so that those Members who want to go to New York can come back.

But we will have votes tomorrow. I wish I could tell you what those votes would be, but I expect we are going to have votes tomorrow.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 957) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

I appreciate my colleague from Maryland for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the House will convene next Monday at 12:30 for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider a number of measures under suspension of the rules. 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 on Tuesday H.R. 1956, the business activity tax bill from the Judiciary Committee.

On Wednesday morning at 11 there will be a joint meeting of Congress to receive His Excellency Mr. Maliki, Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq. Also on Wednesday we will consider H.R. 5682, the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act from the International Relations Committee.

On Thursday, we will consider H.R. 5766, the Government Efficiency Act, and possibly H.R. 3282, the Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal Sunset Act from the Committee on Government Reform.

At this point, Friday is still up in the air. Our goal is to finish on Thursday. It is not a commitment but it is my goal, and I am hopeful that we will be able to meet it. It really will depend on the number of conference reports that may or may not be completed and whether we can fit those in during the week, if they come inside, like the gentleman understands.

I am hopeful that the Voc Ed conference report can be brought up. As the gentleman knows, we have been working on the pension conference. There is no agreement as yet, but I think we are moving toward one, and I am hopeful. But we will see.

I also have an announcement about September votes, which is a change in the calendar. There will be no votes on Tuesday, September 5. I anticipate that we will consider H.R. 503, to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption. We expect that to be considered that first week we are back, and I just wanted Members to be aware of it.

If the gentleman would yield.

We are continuing to have conversations about that issue, but no decisions as of yet. If there is, I will make sure that everyone is notified.

It is very definite.

We are gone September 29. We will be back on November 13.

I am sure you could.

And we will be happy, too.

What we call the lame duck session.

The only question is who will be lame.

I appreciate my colleague for yielding. There are a number of issues related to that bill. I think it is doubtful that it will be up next week. I am hopeful that we will be able to consider it in September.

I appreciate the gentleman's concerns, but I think the gentleman from Maryland understands that I am not the chairman of the conference. I don't decide when we meet, who meets or what room we meet in. I have expressed the gentleman's concerns, and hopefully we will have all of the Members together very soon.

If the gentleman would yield, the other body is chairing this conference, and the gentleman has

been on a number of conferences over the years and understands this process, that the body who chairs the the conference makes those decisions.

If the gentleman would yield, I will be happy to make that suggestion to Mr. McKeon and Mr. Thomas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may in order at any time on Wednesday, July 26, 2006, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting His Excellency Nouri al-Maliki, Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq.

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.