Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this question.

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

The President today used the veto authority for the first time in his Presidency. Yesterday Congress sent him two bills relating to emerging medical research involving the use of so-called stem cells. Today the President signed one of those bills while vetoing a second. A third bill was supported by a majority of House Members last night, but did not capture the necessary two-thirds vote to be passed under the suspension of the rules.

The bill signed into law by the President today is a positive step forward, and I remain hopeful that we can reconsider the other measure at some point in the future. Our colleagues, Roscoe Bartlett, Phil Gingrey, Nathan Deal, and Dave Weldon, deserve great credit for their hard work on these two measures. Their work brings

new hope in the struggle to find cures that have eluded medical researchers for decades as they search for ways to defeat serious disease.

The President's decision to veto the legislation offered by my friend from Delaware Mr. Castle should come as no surprise to anyone. More than a year ago President Bush warned the bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line, the President said, would be a great mistake.

As the President also noted a year ago, there really is no such thing as a ``spare embryo.'' Every man and woman in this Chamber began life as an embryo identical to those destroyed through the process known as embryonic stem cell research. The embryos at issue in this debate are fully capable of growing and being born as healthy babies with loving parents. The notion that embryonic stem cell research relies on ``spare embryos'' that have no value beyond the possibilities for medical research is tragically and deceptively wrong.

Many opponents of the President's decision today are driven by a passion for the preservation of human life and the desire to see developments of cures to chronic diseases. I have great respect for their commitment to this goal, and I think it is a goal that we all share. The passion for the preservation of human life is incomplete if that passion does not extend to the most vulnerable form of human life.

It is wrong to force Americans to allow their tax dollars to subsidize medical research that depends on this destruction of human embryos. The Congress sent the President a bill that would expand the use of Federal tax dollars for this practice, and the President rightly used his veto power to reject it.

Because the vetoed bill originated in the House, the Constitution gives us the duty of receiving the President's veto message and initiating any legislative response. Having now been notified of the President's action, the House will now immediately consider the question of whether to override the President's veto, which would require a two-thirds vote, or to sustain it.

For the reasons I have just articulated, I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the motion to override. No just society should condone the destruction of innocent life, even in the name of medical research. The President was right to veto this bill. It would be wrong for this House to overrule the President's decision by voting to override.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of the underlying bill, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) for a unanimous-consent request.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for a unanimous-consent request.

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

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

My colleagues, we have had a very good debate. This is an issue that has been very divisive in this House for the last year or so, and the President has made his position very clear.

But let me make the position very clear that embryonic research with regard to stem cells is occurring and is going to continue to occur. The issue here is whether Federal funds, taxpayer dollars ought to be used to destroy human life in the search for cures for other diseases. That is what the issue is, pure and simple. We all know that this research is going to continue in the private sector with private moneys.

But the debate that we have had is whether it is appropriate to take taxpayer funds to destroy human life to find embryonic stem cells. I believe that my colleagues, enough of my colleagues will stand up today to sustain the President's veto.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, to vote ``no'' on overriding the President's veto.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution. As we speak, the security situation in the Middle East continues to evolve.

The aggressive, unprovoked acts of violence against Israel by Hezbollah and Hamas are revealing. It is clear they don't want peace, but rather seek the ultimate destruction of Israel. This is why we must support Israel's right to defend itself against these armed attacks.

Each and every day, Israel's very existence is at stake. Since its first day as a nation, Israel has lived under a cloud of aggression from militant extremists and hostile neighboring governments. Most recently, terrorist forces have captured Israeli soldiers and fired rockets into Israeli cities--both unprovoked. These acts of aggression deserve the rapid and decisive response they received.

The United States and Israel have a unique relationship based on our mutual commitment to democracy, freedom, and peace. Therefore, just as our commitment to these principles must be steadfast, so must our support for Israel.

The enemies the United States and Israel face are the same. Their nature is brutal, oppressive, and inspired by hatred. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East has real security implications, not only for Israel, but also for the United States. The same ideologically malevolent forces working to destroy Israel are working to destroy our cherished political values.

The United States did not choose to fight Islamic extremists. These terrorists chose to fight our way of life. They chose to challenge our existence.

We as a Nation have endured heartbreak, tragedy, and occasional setbacks, but we are resolute in taking the fight to the enemy and winning. We cannot afford to lose. The stakes are too high; the price too great. And because we face the same enemy, we will not ask Israel to respond differently. The consequences of not responding are too great.

This resolution simply says Israel has the right to defend itself. This includes conducting operations both inside its borders and in the territory of nations that threaten it, which is in accordance with international law.

Furthermore, it is incumbent upon Lebanon, Syria, and Iran to rein in Hezbollah and Hamas. We know Iran and Syria are helping Hamas and Hezbollah. That is why this resolution reaffirms our support for President Bush as he seeks to use the most effective range of political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions available.

We are clear in our purpose and our resolve. We are committed to peace, democracy, freedom, and prosperity. We will work with those who want these values, and we will use all means at our disposal to stop those who seek to destroy them.

I urge my colleagues to join me in sending a strong message of support to Israel, and I urge all to support this resolution.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Marriage Protection Amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. Speaker, over the past few days some people have asked me, Why are we having this debate and this vote? I think this is an issue that the American people want their Representatives to debate and to vote on. And that is why it is part of the American Values Agenda that we released last month.

It has been front-page news all across the country, sparking intense debate amongst our fellow citizens. Many people that we represent believe the Congress needs to act. While 45 of the 50 States have either a State constitutional amendment or a statute that preserves the current definition of marriage, left-wing activist judges and officials at the local levels have struck down State laws protecting marriage.

The American people should decide this issue, not out-of-touch judges who are bent on redefining what marriage is for America's moms and dads. Poll after poll shows that the American people don't want marriage to be redefined by judges today and for our children tomorrow.

And protecting the institution of marriage safeguards, I believe, the American family. Studies show that children best flourish when one mom and one dad are there to raise them. And 30 years of social science evidence confirms that children respond best when their mom or dad are married and live at home. And that is why marriage and family law has emphasized the importance of marriage as the foundation of family, addressing the needs of children in the most positive way.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to send a strong message to America's moms and dads rather than allowing judges to redefine marriage. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I thank my colleague 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. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices later on this afternoon.

On Tuesday, we expect to do House Joint Resolution 88, the marriage amendment.

For the balance of the week, H.R. 2389, the pledge protection bill; H.R. 5684, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

We do expect that if the Senate acts on the Castle stem cell legislation and several other bills that could be brought over to the House, where the House would consider the other two stem cell bills, and send all three bills to the White House. And then, depending upon what happens at the White House, whether we would vote on a veto override or not is certainly under consideration.

I do expect that we will have votes on Friday at this point. We will continue to work with Members on both sides of the aisle as the schedule develops. But the next two Fridays are scheduled. My hope is that we are able to finish our work, both next week and the following week, by Thursday night so that Members would not have to vote on Friday. But I cannot make that commitment at this point.

Probably.

Yes. It could be Wednesday if you are a real optimist.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

It is expected that the House would take up the other two stem cell bills, pass them, and send them with the Castle bill to the White House, and then be prepared to deal with whatever happens from there.

Yes.

But I do not expect that they will get here until late Tuesday, and so I think the earliest we could take them up would be Wednesday morning.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

There is that issue and other issues on the bill that are still being discussed. There has been no resolution on those.

But I think I will anticipate the next question with regard to the minimum wage. I have had conversations with Members on both sides of the aisle about the issue. It is clearly under discussion, but there have been no decisions made as to what to do or when to do, whatever.

Clearly, protecting the American people's pensions and ensuring that we get better funding of private pension plans is the goal of this legislation. I can tell the gentleman that I think we are very close. There is some progress. We are close. We have discussed this for months and months here. It is a very difficult bill, as you are well aware, and trying to make sure that there is balance, that we dot the I's and cross the T's, that process is under way. But I am hopeful.

As the gentleman is aware, this conference is being chaired by the Senate. There has been one formal conference meeting. But I can tell you there have been consultations with Members of both parties on both sides of the Capitol with regard to many of the issues that have been agreed to and issues that are yet to be resolved, and I fully expect those conversations will continue.

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. Chairman, I want to give all the Members an idea of what the schedule for the day is. After the passage of this bill, we will move to the rule on the Deep Water Recovery Act, the OCS bill, and the rule on the resolution with regard to the disclosure of the SWIFT Program. Once those two rules have been considered, there will be votes, and then we will move to the OCS bill and then finally to the resolution.

We expect to complete our week's work by 6 or 6:15 this evening. I am trying to give everyone as much notice as we can. That is the schedule as I see it.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 5672 pursuant to House Resolution 890, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clause 9 of rule XX.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Next week, Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Monday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour, and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will have some suspensions on the floor on Monday. A final list of those bills will be distributed by the end of the week.

For the balance of the week, the House will consider, on Tuesday, the flood insurance reform program. We are hopeful that the State, Science, Justice and Commerce appropriations bill could come up as early as Tuesday evening.

The rest of the week, H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, and any possible conference reports that might be available.

I don't want anyone to misinterpret what I am going to say about next week's schedule. I am trying my best to make sure that we are finished by next Thursday evening. I think the congressional baseball game is next Thursday evening. I would like for us to complete our work before then.

Now, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not committing myself to that. We have work that we need to get finished next week, but I am hopeful that our work leading into the July 4 District Work Period will be completed by then.

That is correct.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

I can announce to the House that we do not expect to have votes on Friday, July 14. We will have votes on that Monday preceding that, but I expect that we will have no votes on the 14th.

It is also my expectation that by the close of business next Thursday we will have a firmed-up schedule for July. The schedule that we are operating under was developed last December, and I think it is incumbent upon us to review that. And so by the end of next week, we will have a revised schedule. If there are any other times available, we will have that out to Members by the end of next week.

I sure did.

The Voting Rights Act is a very important piece of legislation. It is a very important piece of the legislation done in the 1960s. It is an important part of our civil rights protections. As we reauthorize this bill, I think we need to remember it is not due to expire until July of next year. And we have Members who have different interpretations of what some of the words say in the bill that came out of committee. There has been some concerns raised. We are trying to clarify some issues for Members.

When we get it resolved, we will bring it to the floor.

I would just say, having been my open and honest self so many times here on time frames and then to have them come back and bite me, I am a bit reluctant to suggest to you when this will occur, but as soon as we clarify these issues to the satisfaction of Members, we will bring it up.

It is not on the schedule next week.

I didn't say that. It is just not on the schedule next week.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes. The bill came out of committee, but typically the rules of the House don't allow Members to legislate on an appropriation bill, and I think there are a lot of people who believe that is legislation on an appropriation bill. So there are some concerns about it. And let me be fair. There are other issues with the bill beyond the provision that was authored by my friend from Maryland.

I will take that into consideration.

Do these questions get any easier?

The Health IT bill has shared jurisdiction between the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. There are some issues. They are trying to resolve those issues. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, as you are probably aware, was preoccupied with two other projects this week, and I do not believe that the issues have been resolved. I do expect it will be up early in July, but I am not sure that we are going to be able to resolve those differences by next week.

If it does come up, it will be under suspension of the rules. I would like to see it on the floor next week, and we are discussing that with Chairman Sensenbrenner. I would hope that it is up next week.

If I could continue, the gentleman was kind enough not to ask me the question that he has asked me for the last 3 months, and that is the status of the pension bill, so I thought I would just do it on my own.

We have made a lot of progress this week, and I have talked to Democrat Members here in the House and in the Senate, as well as my Republican colleagues. We are very close, I believe, to an agreement that will receive the kind of broad bipartisan support we saw of the pension bill when it left the House and the Senate last year. So I am not sure that the conference report will be ready for the floor next week, but it is possible.

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, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of the bill H.R. 5631, pursuant to House Resolution 877, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clause 9 of rule XX.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

This week the House has engaged in an important debate on the war in Iraq and how best to combat terrorism in a post-9/11 world. And there are major differences between those of us who support a strong national defense and national security policy and understand what we have at stake and those who would prefer to retreat from the world stage and attempt to manage the threat of terrorism and the danger that it poses.

During the 1990s, the enemies of freedom used terror and violence in futile attempts to intimidate the United States and the cause of freedom. I will remind all of my colleagues that on February 26, 1993, we had the first World Trade Center bombing. It killed six people and injured more than 1,000 people. And on June 25, 1996, a U.S. facility in Saudi Arabia, the Khobar Towers, was bombed, killing 20 people and injuring some 372 more. On June 7, 1998, our embassy in Kenya was bombed, killed 213 people and injured 5,000 people. And on June 7, 1998, the same day, our embassy in Tanzania was bombed, killed 11 people, injured 68 more. On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole was bombed, killing 17 of our sailors and injuring 39 more.

What was our response? During the 1990s, world leaders looked at the mounting threat of terrorism, looked up, looked away, and hoped the problem would go away. But what happened on September 11, 2001? 3,000 Americans were killed by these same terrorists. And in a post-9/11 world, looking up, looking away, and hoping the problem would go away is no longer the answer.

That is why we are having this important debate here on the floor today. The American public deserves to hear how their elected leaders will respond to international terrorism and those enemies who seek to destroy our American way of life.

Will we fight or will we retreat? That is the question that is posed to us. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle often refer to Iraq as a distraction.

They have called Operation Iraqi Freedom a war of choice that isn't part of the real war on terror. Someone should tell that to al Qaeda. Let's be clear here. Those who say this is a war of choice are nothing more than wrong. This is a war of necessity that we must fight.

But you don't have to believe me. Just listen to al Qaeda's own leader, their number two leader. Ayman al Zawahiri knows how important the future of Iraq is to his cause. In a 6,000-word letter to al Qaeda's then commander in Iraq, the recently eliminated Zarqawi, he made clear that the terrorists view Iraq as a central battlefield in the global war on terror.

For some reason, this brazen declaration from one of our nemesis about Iraq's importance hasn't registered with many opponents of the war who insist on conceding defeat and withdrawing. If the terrorists tell us directly they see Iraq as a central front on their violent ambitions across the globe, should we dismiss it? Should we dismiss their claims and simply wait for them to attack America?

Operation Iraqi Freedom was hardly a war of choice. Saddam was already a menace and a threat to international order when he ordered several divisions of the Iraqi army into Kuwait in 1990. He routinely supported and openly encouraged acts of terrorism. He relentlessly persecuted and tortured his own civilian population, including Shiias, Sunnis, Kurds and others. He engaged in a multi-billion dollar scandal involving a number of our allies aimed at thwarting the sanctions that were put in place after the gulf war, and abusing the Oil-for-Food Program, thus causing even greater harm to his own people.

He refused to disclose and foreswear his maniacal pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and he ignored international sanctions and resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council. Saddam made the case for his ouster better than anyone else could.

President Bush said, on the eve of the American-led invasion, that we would meet the threat before it became imminent, so that we would not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters, police, doctors and others on the streets of our own cities.

September 11 made it clear that we could no longer afford to ignore madmen who threaten our peace and stability. We can no longer let rogue regimes go unchecked and unchallenged.

And because of the combination of modern technology and a murderous ideology, we can no longer count on vast oceans or our own military supremacy to keep America safe. The enemy we must confront does not accept political negotiations or coexistence. The aims of our enemies are clear, to destroy anyone who stands for values, beliefs or political systems which are contrary to their warped and repressive ideology.

Their aims are to destroy the cause of freedom and democracy itself. That is why retreat is not an option in Iraq. As part of the global war on terror, the stakes for the American people are too great. The action we took in Iraq was in the best interests of the American people and the world community.

The events of 9/11 demonstrated that we had to show our own resolve as the world's premier defender of freedom and liberty before such ideals were

preyed upon rather than after standing witness to their demise at the hands of our enemies.

Some of my friends on the other side have called the war in Iraq a failed effort. This is curious, given the constant drumbeat of progress since the toppling of the Hussein regime. More children are going to school now in Iraq than at any point in their country's history. The Iraqis have held successful elections, drafted and ratified a national constitution, and have put together the first sovereign, free and unified government in Iraq's history.

Just in the past week we have seen several positive developments in Iraq and the global war on terror. The U.S. military forces eliminated the terrorist al Zarqawi, al Qaeda's top commander in Iraq, and a cold- blooded killer.

The Iraqi Government named new Interior, Defense and Security Ministers as part of their new government's continued progress. And President Bush traveled to Baghdad to meet the newly appointed Prime Minister, Mr. Maliki, to discuss our growing partnership with our new democratic ally.

Yes, there have been some setbacks. No war is easy, but an honest account of our effort must acknowledge the staying power of the insurgency and the support it has received from foreign forces. But the effort and savagery of these insurgents and their sponsors only underscores our progress and the importance of this effort in the global war on terror.

If we had adopted the irrational policies of those who lack commitment to winning this fight, the terrorist, al Zarqawi, would still be alive and plotting attacks against Iraqis and Americans.

Defeating repressive, radical terrorists and their allies is our defining task of the 21st century. Crushing their deadly and poisonous ideology, freeing from tyranny the millions threatened with its bondage, is an effort which the United States and her allies are uniquely suited.

We are the primary target of radical terrorists, and the leader of nations with the capability and fortitude to wage a prolonged fight against these people. In my view, we must not shy away, if only so our children and their children may live in peace.

The American people are understandably concerned about our mission in a post-Saddam Iraq. There have been many tough days since Iraq's liberation and transition to a sovereign democracy. Advancing freedom and building democracies in a part of the world that has known nothing but tyranny is a difficult task. But achieving victory there and gaining a democratic ally in the region will be the best gift of security we can give to future generations of Americans and Iraqi people who have longed to rid themselves of tyranny and oppression.

The world scoffed at Ronald Reagan when he said, tear down this wall. They said communism could never be replaced by freedom. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reagan was right. And the editorial writers and many in Congress back then were wrong. It is that same faith in humanity, that same faith in freedom that compels us to win in Iraq and to win the global war on terror. Freedom wins. And we will win, because Ronald Reagan noted at the Brandenburg Gate, freedom trumps those ancient hatreds. The freedom to raise your family, the freedom to walk your kids to school, the freedom to live in peace. As Ronald Reagan said, it is always freedom that is the victor.

President John Kennedy said once so eloquently, the cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.

This week's debate has given all of us an opportunity to answer a fundamental question, are we going to confront the threat of terrorism and defeat it, or will we relent and retreat in the hope that it just goes away?

Achieving victory is our only option. And for the sake of the American people and our kids and theirs, we have no choice but to confront these terrorists, win the war on terror, and spread freedom and democracy around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the whip for yielding.

Next week we will convene on Monday at 12:30 for morning hour and 2 o'clock for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A list of those will be sent out by the end of today. Any votes called on these will be rolled until 5 p.m. on Monday. I want to repeat that: 5 p.m. we will vote on Monday.

For the balance of the week, the House will consider on Tuesday, the Department of Defense appropriation bill; Wednesday, the Voting Rights Act, the reauthorization and several amendments; and on Thursday, we will do the legislative line item veto.

I will remind Members there are no votes next Friday.

If the gentleman would yield.

We have discussed it. It is somewhat problematic, but I think what I would say to my colleague is let me keep working with you to see if we can't come to some agreement. I think 6 o'clock would be too late but 5:30 may work. We will continue to work with you on that.

We are continuing to work with the appropriators, trying to resolve some issues in order to find a way to bring it to the floor, but we do not expect to consider it next week.

I understand your interest.

We were hoping to do that Health IT bill next week. We have got some scoring issues and some what we believe are problems with CBO that we are trying to iron out. So I would expect hopefully those will be ironed out next week and possibly bring that bill up for the following week.

As the gentleman knows, I do several media events every week where members of the press routinely ask me every Tuesday and every Thursday the same question, and as you know, this is a very difficult issue. Protecting Americans' pensions and the commitments that have been made

to them by their employers is very important, and trying to strengthen the funding rules over these plans is critically important.

I can tell you that there are some issues that we are hung up on. We have had a lot of conversations. We are continuing to have conversations. I am a little more optimistic today than I was yesterday, but we are not there yet. There are Democrat Members who have been involved in at least informal conversations on both sides of the Capitol with regard to how we would proceed, but no timeline yet.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield.

Most of the Republican conferees have yet to sit down at the table as well. The principals have been involved and the leadership on both sides have been involved, and as I said, there have been a lot of informal conversations with Democrat Members on both sides of the Capitol.

I said Democrat Members have been involved on both sides of the Capitol.

The leadership on the Senate side and the House side have been engaged in this as well.

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