Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 417 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 417 is a closed rule that provides for the consideration of H.J. Res. 75, a continuing resolution that will ensure further appropriations for the fiscal year 2004. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, we passed the first continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 69, during the final days of September and it became Public Law 108-84. The provisions of H.J. Res. 69 are scheduled to expire this Friday, October 31. Therefore, under the joint resolution that this rule makes in order, the provisions of that first continuing resolution will be extended until November 7, 2003. In brief, for the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bills that have been enacted into law, the continuing resolution provides an additional week of funding for government agencies.

Mr. Speaker, we did pass a continuing resolution last week that conjoined the six fiscal year 2004 appropriations bills that have been passed by

the House, but the other body clearly needs additional time to complete the funding work for the coming year. The House has passed each of the 13 regular appropriations bills. However, to ensure that essential government services continue to operate, this rule makes in order another continuing resolution to give us the additional time to complete the appropriations process in an orderly manner.

This rule was approved by the Committee on Rules yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support it. I know all of us in the House wait with great anticipation the completion of the appropriations work by the Members of the other body. Until that time, this resolution will provide a continuation of funding for government agencies until these important issues are resolved.

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

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

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 407 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 407 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 73, which is a continuing resolution that makes further appropriations for fiscal year 2004. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this joint resolution provides an additional week of funding for government agencies because the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bills have not yet been enacted into law. Specifically, this resolution extends until November 7, 2003, the provisions of the previous continuing appropriations resolution that were to expire on October 31, 2003. In addition, this resolution conjoins the six fiscal year 2004 appropriations bills that have passed the House, but have not yet been considered by the other body.

Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the completion of the first session of this 108th Congress, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so we may proceed to the consideration of the underlying continuing resolution. While the House has passed each of the appropriations bills, it is clear that there are issues left to resolve in the other body that will require additional time to complete the

work on the remaining appropriations bills. I am hopeful that the continuing resolution covered by this rule will give us the time we need to complete the appropriations process in a thoughtful and orderly manner.

The rule was approved by the Committee on Rules yesterday, and I urge my colleagues to support it so we may proceed with general date and consideration of the joint resolution. The House hopes to complete the appropriations process as soon as possible, and this resolution will provide the time to resolve the issues that remain outstanding.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 370 is a modified, closed rule that provides one hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Res. 370 waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, as modified by the amendment printed in Part A of the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, shall be considered as adopted.

The rule also provides for the consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in Part B of the Committee on Rules report, if offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) or his designee, which shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in Part B of the report.

Finally, H. Res. 370 provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in approving this fair and balanced rule, so that the full House can proceed to consider the underlying bipartisan charitable giving legislation.

The basic thrust of H.R. 7 is to make a number of changes to the Tax Code in order to provide incentives for individuals and businesses to make charitable contributions. I suspect that we would all agree that the Tax Code should not discourage taxpayers or businesses from seeking to help others. H.R. 7 is designed to ensure that charitable contributions of many different kinds can flourish by providing a variety of tax incentives for people and employers to help those in need. I applaud the hard work and leadership of my friend and colleague, the majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and his principal Democrat cosponsor, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), in bringing this legislation to the House floor today.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting for this rule so that we can move on to consideration of the underlying legislation.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), our colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) have any further speakers?

Is the gentlewoman prepared to yield back?

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I mourn the loss of retired U.S. Marine Corps General Raymond G. Davis, who passed away yesterday in Atlanta, Georgia.

With his birth on January 13, 1915, in Fitzgerald, Georgia, Raymond Gilbert Davis began a life of service to his fellow Americans. His military career, for which he is best known, commenced after his graduation from the Georgia School of Technology in 1933, where he participated in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps unit. In 1938, General Davis resigned his commission with the U.S. Army Infantry Reserve to accept an appointment as a U.S. Marine Corps second lieutenant.

It was General Davis' bravery while serving in the U.S. Marine Corps that proves how this ordinary man was truly one of America's extraordinary heroes. During the Korean War, then Lt. Col. Davis gave this country his most famous demonstration of his unparalleled leadership during the 1st Marine Division's historic break out of the Chosin Reservoir area. During that campaign, in the face of treacherous weather conditions and overwhelming enemy numbers, he led a battalion of Marines to prevent the annihilation of a beleaguered Marine rifle company and secured a mountain pass for the safe deployment of two additional Marine regiments while keeping his own forces intact.

Following this act of bravery, President Truman, who presented the Medal of Honor to Lt. Col. Davis on November 24, 1952, wrote, ``his valiant devotion to duty and unyielding fighting spirit in the face of almost insurmountable odds enhance and sustain the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.''

General Davis once jokingly told me that was the biggest mistake he ever made because every time Marines were trapped they sent for him. He, of course, was pleased to do whatever his country asked him to do.

General Davis, who also served in World War II and the Vietnam War, culminated his service with an appointment as the Assistant Commandant to the Marine Corps. Following his service in this capacity, General Davis retired from the U.S. Marine Corps in 1972, and became America's most highly decorated living veteran. His decorations include: the Medal of Honor; the Navy Cross; the Distinguished Service Medal with Gold Star in lieu of a second award; the Silver Star Medal with Gold Star in lieu of a second award; the Legion of Merit with Combat ``V'' and Gold Star in lieu of a second award; the Bronze Star Medal with Combat ``V''; the Purple Heart; the Presidential Unit Citation with four bronze stars indicative of second through fifth awards; the Navy Unit Commendation; the American Defense Service Medal with Fleet clasp; the American Campaign Medal; the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with one silver star in lieu of five bronze stars; the World War II Victory Medal; the National Defense Service Medal with one bronze star; the Korean Service Medal with four bronze stars; the Vietnam Service Medal with three bronze stars; the National Order of Vietnam, 4th Class; the National Order of Vietnam, 5th Class; the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with three Palms; two Korean Presidential Unit Citations; the United Nations Service Medal; and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.

General Davis' devotion to his fellow Americans did not end with his retirement. General Davis was instrumental in the design, funding and construction of the U.S. Korean War Memorial located here in Washington, DC. I was there on the day it was opened. I was as proud of my friend on this occasion as I have ever been. It struck me that while he was a genuine hero as a military leader, his greatest contributions to his nation may have been what he did over the last 31 years for his fellow veterans. He loved them for their service and they revered him for his leadership.

Then, General Davis played a crucial role in creating U.S.-Korea 2000, an organization that reached out to almost 40,000 veterans of the Korean War in order to allow them to participate in ceremonies associated with the 50th anniversary of the Korean War. In my home state of Georgia, he devoted his time and energy to the construction of the Georgia War Veterans Memorial Park in Rockdale County.

Through the years I have known Ray Davis, not only as a fellow veteran, but also as a friend. His courageous devotion to his comrades, his unyielding fight for the American veteran, and his love for and service to the United States itself are all examples of what it truly means to be an American.

While his military service was exemplary, his post military service deserved just as many medals. I generally open a speech with the request for all veterans in the audience to stand. When they do, they are met, without exception, with the greatful applause of the rest in attendance. Ray Davis taught me that.

When I am in a campaign I always target veterans since, as Ray always reminded me, I should be proud that I am one and should share that fact.

When the Republican Party is in a presidential race, whether 1988, 1992, 1996, or 2000, I could always expect Ray Davis to be escorting our candidate around veterans groups. Indeed, there was no military leader, with the possible exception of Omar Bradley, more revered by the troops, then my friend Ray Davis.

Let me hasten to add that he was never satisfied with our efforts. I was the proud recipient of many letters and phone calls from this American hero reminding me of how many veterans there were and what patriots they were and how little we were doing to appreciate them. I may have disagreed with him once or twice, but I do not recall it. My prayers go to Willa and the family.

America has lost a great warrior and hero. And I have lost a great friend. I shall miss him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 329, a rule that will enable the House to consider two historic free trade agreements. I urge all of my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting this rule.

Approval of this rule will allow the House to proceed to consider H.R. 2738, a U.S. free trade agreement with Chile; and H.R. 2739, a U.S. free trade agreement with Singapore.

I consider it an honor to have worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the Committee on Rules chairman, and our House leadership in generating the needed support for these important trade agreements; and I am pleased that they are being considered on the House floor today.

One of the main reasons that the United States of America is a shining beacon on the hill for so many others is our open markets. These open markets help bring wider choices and lower prices for businesses and consumers at home and help to promote better relationships for the U.S. abroad. Trade also helps to build strong economies and assists in fighting poverty and hunger all around the world.

As we continue in the fight against global terrorism, trade can and should be used as a tool to help spread democracy, American values, and stability.

As Governor Ronald Reagan recognized in a 1974 speech: ``Constructive trade, the two-way exchange of goods and services, is the most efficient and logical way for each nation and each area of the world to build a stable prosperity, a prosperity based not on aid, but on mutually beneficial economic contacts.'' I believe that free trade is beneficial to both the United States and our trading partners and is a principal component of proliferating the principles of freedom and democracy worldwide.

Trade is also particularly good for America's small businesses. Small business is the backbone of our Nation's economy, creating three out of every four new jobs and generating roughly half of the U.S. private gross domestic product; 97 percent of America's exporters are small businesses. To stay at the forefront of innovation, U.S. small businesses need access to foreign markets.

The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement will not only bring new market access for U.S. consumers and industrial products, but also new opportunities for our farmers and ranchers. More than 85 percent of trade in the areas of agriculture, construction, automobiles, technology, medical equipment, and paper products will be tariff-free immediately, with most of the remaining tariffs being phased out over 4 years.

Georgia, the State that I am proud to represent, has benefited significantly from trade with Chile. In fact, in 2001, Georgia had the 15th most exports to Chile in the entire United States. These exports have and will continue to provide high-paying jobs to the citizens of Georgia.

The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, America's first trade agreement in Asia, is critical because it will give U.S. professionals new access into the fields of financial services, telecommunications, advertising and engineering, to name just a few. We must act now and approve these free trade agreements to give U.S. exporters the chance to compete on a level playing field with foreign exporters.

I believe that America must continue to strive toward expanded free trade and not retreat into the mistaken protectionism of the past. We must work to open markets, eliminate tariffs and barriers, and ensure that our Nation remains at the forefront of global economic success. The freedom to trade is a basic human liberty, and its exercise across political borders unites people in peaceful cooperation and mutual prosperity.

In his last speech as the last British Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten spoke about trade; and he said this: If a planetary spaceship had come to the planet Earth in the 16th century from the muddy flats of teepee-strewn North America to the typhoid-driven Longmen, to the warring planes in Paris and landed in the Ming dynasty, they would have concluded in a millisecond that China would rule the world for centuries. She had recently discovered gun powder, the printing press. She had a moderate sea and a growing and rich culture, and then she built a wall around herself and history told a different tale.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule. We need to proceed to debate and immediately adopt both of the underlying measures.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 326 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 326 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2799, the FY 2004 appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies. H. Res. 326 provides 1 hour of general debate in the House on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and waives points of order against provisions in bill for failing to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, except as specified in the rule.

The rule also accords priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted amendments in the Congressional Record. This will simply encourage Members to take advantage of the option in order to facilitate consideration of amendments on the House floor and to inform Members of the details of pending amendments.

Finally, the bill provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 326 is a typical open rule to be considered for general appropriations bills. This rule does not restrict the normal open amending process in any way, and any amendments that comply with the standing Rules of the House may be offered for consideration. While a vast number of amendments are not expected, the rule permits those Members who have amendments every opportunity to offer them.

I want to begin by noting the good work of the Committee on Appropriations' subcommittee in bringing this legislation to the floor. The gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and his subcommittee are to be commended for setting the funding priorities of these departments and agencies despite a number of challenging funding limitations.

That said, while I do not agree with every provision in the bill, this rule will provide House Members with every opportunity to offer a number of amendments to improve this important appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, there will be sufficient time during general debate to discuss the specific provisions in this bill, but I did want to point out a couple of provisions within this appropriations bill that recognize the post-9/11 commitment of this House to ensure that law enforcement across the Nation has the resources necessary to combat crime in America while meeting the new challenge of international terrorism.

This includes $4.64 billion in funding for the FBI, $424 million above the FY 2003 level, to support efforts to improve counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts and to continue fighting violent crime, drugs, corporate fraud and cyber-crime.

In addition, the bill includes $2.16 billion for the DEA, which is $237 million above the FY 2003 funding, to establish a Drug Intelligence Fusion Center to allow agencies to share real time investigative data and support the creation of new positions.

In terms of providing for law enforcement at the State level, this bill provides $3.5 billion to assist States and localities in fighting crime. This includes $500 million for the Byrne formula program, $400 million for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program, $462 million for juvenile delinquency prevention and accountability programs, $388 million for violence against women, prevention and prosecution, $174 million to eliminate DEA analysis backlogs, and $400 million to reimburse States for criminal alien detention costs.

Mr. Speaker, this rule ensures an open amendment process for consideration of the funding legislation for the Departments of Commerce, State, Justice, and the Judiciary. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so we may begin debate on this important legislation.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman from

Texas that in order to support the rule he is going to have to support the previous question to get to the rule.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues, what the rule does is routine in appropriations bills. We protect the product of the committee and have an open amending process.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to remind those of my colleagues on the minority side of the aisle, who said they would urge their colleagues to support the rule, that you will not get a chance to do that unless they pass the previous question.

So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 311 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2657, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2004. H. Res. 311 provides 1 hour of debate in the House on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against the bill and against its consideration, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by first noting the first-class work of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee in bringing this legislation forward to the House floor. It was particularly refreshing to see the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), testifying in support of their work product before the House yesterday.

It is a fiscally responsible bill that will ultimately encourage greater productivity and meaningful savings, and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is to be commended for his management oversight that will certainly ensure that organizational changes are administered better within the legislative branch's agencies.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the largest appropriations bill and it is not the most important. However, this appropriations bill is important because it sets the tone for what the House leadership and the Republican House are working towards in terms of fiscal responsibility, effective organization, and result-focused management across the Federal Government.

In brief, this appropriations bill provides $2.7 billion in funding for fiscal year 2004, including funding for the House, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, and the General Accounting Office. It is important to note, however, that this $2.7 billion figure is 1.2 percent less in total dollars than in the current fiscal year. This decrease represents a reduction in funding of almost $34 million compared to the current fiscal year.

While Congress at times has demonstrated difficulty in restraining itself from spending money, it strikes me as a significant event that this bill before us today cuts the congressional

budget for fiscal year 2004. It is an indication that there is a continued commitment to make the government work more efficiently and that that commitment begins with ourselves in the legislative branch.

Mr. Speaker, this rule ensures the orderly consideration of the legislative branch funding legislation. I urge Members to support the rule so we may begin to debate this important legislation.

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

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

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

I could not be more in agreement with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). We do have an amendment here we are going to ask unanimous consent to be added to the bill that would put limitation and delete that language so that no expansion of that service be available.

Let me just add this. This is not the first time I have seen this happen. Some years ago I was involved in the settlement of some final appropriations bills, and language was put into the bill to dramatically change the Native American health system, and it was found and stripped out, and it found its way back into the bill. When that happens at any level, the person who is responsible for it ought to be fired at that moment. I hope we can do that in this case.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the pending resolution be amended by the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the impact of this amendment would just delete any possibility that any increases or expansions of dental care or vision care will be expanded.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, as we have just learned in the last hour or so, and the chairman has just learned it here, someone somewhere slipped language into the leg branch bill that expands dental and vision health insurance benefits for Members and employees of the House. And I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin. A fair and open discussion of expansion of these benefits for everyone is a legitimate course for this House to take and vote up or down, but to hide it in a bill and slide it in is simply inappropriate.

This language is eliminating language on the leg branch bill, and it says that none of the funds in this act may be used to provide that expansion of dental or vision benefits. It puts a limitation on those benefits where they are correct right now in the current form.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman is correct, and if he would not mind yielding to the chairman of the subcommittee, he has something to say on it, too.

If the gentleman would yield further, I think we know where to start now.

If the gentleman will yield further, it will be the adoption of the rule will strike the language.

That is correct. The adoption of the rule will put in place limiting language that will prevent any expansion of those benefits.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was on the floor when this happened and knows that we tried to explain at the time that the amendment to the rule was effectively a striking amendment that said that, if the rule passes as amended, in no way will any expansion of vision or dental benefits occur.

The gentleman made it very clear he would not mind debating that on the floor of the House and having an open discussion of it and maybe passing an expansion of vision and dental benefits, but to pass this rule as amended would allow us not to sneak it in. So to pass this rule as amended is a striking amendment to prohibit any expansion of benefits without a vote by the House.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 297 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 297 is a simple, straightforward measure that authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Wednesdays for the remainder of the 108th Congress. I strongly supported this proposal and urge all of my colleagues in the House to join with me in approving this measure.

This past Monday, the Rules Subcommittee on Technology and the House, which I chair, held a hearing to consider this very proposal. The chairman of the Committee on Rules testified on this proposal, and the subcommittee gathered testimony from the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) as well.

During the debate on H. Res. 297, I urge my colleagues to keep their remarks to the underlying measure, rather than use this modest proposal as an excuse to debate other matters. Extending the Speaker's ability to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Wednesdays provides the House leadership with another tool that can be used to easily move noncontroversial legislation through the Chamber.

By way of background, when the House convened on January 7, 2003, we adopted H. Res. 5, the House rules for the 108th Congress. Specifically, clause 1 of rule XV provides that it is in order for the House to entertain a motion to suspend the rules on Mondays, Tuesdays, and in the last 6 days of session

of Congress. That very same day, the House also approved a standing order that authorized the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Wednesdays, through the second Wednesday in April. On April 30, 2003, the House adopted a unanimous consent agreement that extended the authority of the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through yesterday, June 25. There have been a total of 16 Wednesdays this year on which the House could have considered legislation under suspension of the rules. Through yesterday, this authority was exercised 13 times.

Entertaining motions to suspend the rules on Wednesdays has been a valuable and helpful tool for the House leadership. In fact, just a few weeks ago, the minority showed how much clout they can have actually in defeating these suspensions when they opposed two Senate-passed public lands bills and both measures failed under suspension of the rules. Eventually, we brought both measures back to the floor where they were overwhelmingly approved. There is simply no evidence to support any claim that permitting the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Wednesdays limits or infringes on the rights of the minority.

Madam Speaker, approving this resolution is the right thing to do.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on my time, I would like to ask the Clerk to reread the rule.

Madam Speaker, I thought I was correct. This is a rule on suspensions, not on Medicare.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I am happy to give the gentleman 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I have explained this rule, and the Clerk has

read it twice. I do not know what the gentleman does not understand about it or what needs to be discussed about it. This was a rule that was passed in April under unanimous consent. If the gentleman wants to discuss the rule, I will be delighted to engage him. But if the gentleman wants to discuss something else, he is all on his own.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I do not agree with my Massachusetts colleague who said it is dumbing down democracy to do suspensions and not have amendments. To get to a conclusion at many times is good for the process, good for the country.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that this is a typical rule on a tax bill, and it gives the minority an opportunity to put all of their eggs in one basket and to vote on a substitute; and that is fair.

But let me speak to the underlying issue, the bill. I was with President Bush some months ago at Harrison High School in Cobb County, Georgia. He spoke for about 30 minutes in a gymnasium that was filled to the rafters. And at one brief time he said we must make permanent the repeal of the death tax, and the place exploded in spontaneous applause and cheering. I turned to the person I was sitting next to, and I said there are not 40 people in this auditorium who are going to benefit from that. They are cheering it because they think it is a moral issue. People should be able to pass on what they earn and keep.

Mr. Speaker, why are we so angry at success in this body? What do rich people do with their money? They give it away, and they do not give it away for

tax reasons. Some of the great fortunes that were given away, the Fricks, the Carnegies, the Mellons, were given away before we had a Tax Code. They were given away because they wanted to, and we think they have a right to decide where their money goes. Bill Gates gives it in Africa for health reasons; Ted Turner gave $1 billion to the United Nations. Let them make that choice, rather than take it away from them and make the choice for them.

I have said this before on this floor, and I want to say it again. Some years ago and maybe today, if you want to start a business in some great cities, you are visited by a pretty scruffy guy who says we are going to let you stay in business, but we want 30 percent of your profits. And if you sell the business, we are going to take 20 percent of what you make off it; but even the Mafia does not show up at the widow's doorstep asking for their share of what is left over. Our government does. It is immoral, and it ought to end.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of House Resolution 269 and urge the House to approve this rule so that we can move on to consideration of the underlying legislation, H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003.

This structured rules makes in order a total of four amendments. In fact, three of those amendments are sponsored by Democrats. The other amendment has bipartisan sponsorship. Thus this rule will allow the House to work its will on the key issues that these amendments raise, and H. Res. 269 should receive bipartisan support for doing so.

The editorial staff for The Washington Post once wrote that ``no portion of the American civil justice system is more of a mess than the world of class actions. None is in more desperate need of policymakers' attention.'' I agree.

Class action litigation is one of America's most embarrassing judicial practices, pitting settlement-hungry lawyers against unsuspecting consumers seeking redress for their grievances. I know that all of the Members of this House are very familiar with some of the outrageous class action settlements that have become depressingly common in States all across the Nation.

In these instances, skillful trial lawyers earn million-dollar fees for filing meritless class action lawsuits which are frequently settled rather than litigated in court. When this happens, trial lawyers are the primary beneficiaries, and the individuals with the class action lawsuits receive very modest financial payments or even, in some cases, just coupons toward future purchases. Surely we can do better than that for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1115 contains a number of commonsense reforms all designed to curb these abusive lawsuits, while still ensuring that legitimate lawsuits can move through the court system.

The fact that this class action reform was crafted in a bipartisan fashion is a credit to its authors, the gentlemen from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and (Mr. Boucher). I support their responsible collection of legal reforms, and I hope legislation of this nature can be enacted during this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 263 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 263 is a structured rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. This is a fair, structured rule that merits the House's approval.

This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.

This rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying H. Res. 263. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated by the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

This rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

With respect to the underlying legislation, H.R. 2143, I want to acknowledge the efforts of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, in bringing this important bill to the floor today. This rule we have before us today will give the House the opportunity to consider

H.R. 2143 and three additional amendments made in order under the rule.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 263 is a structured rule that will give the full House an opportunity to work its will on the major issues it raises, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we can move on to consideration of the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

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

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

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

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

I would just like to point out in the light of the conversations we have heard today that by definition a tax credit is a credit against income taxes paid. People who are left out supposedly were people who do not pay income taxes and do not get a credit because there is no place against which to lay that credit. I am sorry that we are turning the income tax system into a welfare program, but it appears that we are about to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 190 to establish a joint committee to review House and Senate rules, joint rules, and any additional issues of importance pertaining to the continuity and security of congressional operations. The Rules Subcommittee held a hearing yesterday to hear testimony from the chairman of the Committee on Rules and our ranking minority member, the sponsors of this proposed joint committee. It is a serious proposal. It is timely, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) deserve great credit for their leadership on this issue.

We are considering this kind of procedural proposal here today because any review of our parliamentary rules and procedures must now be evaluated in a post-September 11 atmosphere that incorporated once implausible circumstances into how the legislative branch will operate. Following the horrendous acts of terrorism perpetrated on the American people on September 11, our Nation realized it had entered into a new era in which liberty and freedom would be under attack from a new kind of enemy. Those of us representing the American people in this Chamber also rededicated ourselves to meet our obligation to act for the protection of our citizens and the institutions that govern them.

As a result, it is imperative that the Federal Government be in the most effective position to protect the American public, and the most visible sign of our Nation meeting this obligation has revealed itself in our efforts to find and eliminate enemies at home and abroad. It is also our obligation to ensure that the continuity of our representational government continues.

The House took action on the opening day of this Congress to implement some appropriate institutional mechanisms in case of an emergency. In light of the critical nature of the considerable responsibilities of the United States Congress, the time is right to continue to reevaluate our procedural requirements that affect the manner in which our legislative duties will be conducted in the House and Senate in an emergency.

Mr. Speaker, the mission of this joint committee will be to undertake a comprehensive review of House and Senate procedures, one, to ensure the continuity and authority of Congress during times of crisis; two, to improve congressional procedures necessary for the enactment of measures affecting homeland security during times of crisis; and, three, to enhance the ability of each Chamber to cooperative effectively with the other body on major and consequential issues related to homeland security.

By passing this concurrent resolution today, we put the wheels in motion for an internal assessment to help ensure the continuity and security of congressional operations. This represents a serious step in the right direction for modernizing congressional procedures, elevating parliamentary preparedness, and having the House and Senate think about what needs to be done to ensure

the legislative's branch continued viability in the face of any emergency situation.

I thank the House leadership for recognizing the importance of these security and continuity of operations matters and for swiftly advancing this proposal to the House floor. I urge unanimous support for this bipartisan proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 257 is a fair rule that will permit the full House to work its will on H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. This rule makes in order the Greenwood-Hoyer amendment to H.R. 760 and provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Why is the House debating this legislation yet again? Unfortunately, the answer to that is those who oppose it have claimed that Congress has no power to legislate a ban on partial-birth abortion because of the Supreme Court's Stenberg v. Carhart ruling.

Many of these same House Members, however, had no objection to standing up to the Supreme Court on other issues. For example, 413 House Members voted to ban child pornography even after the Supreme Court held that the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act was unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the underlying bill, any taking of innocent life is wrong. This procedure is demonstrably offensive and wrong. When a Nation puts people in jail and fines them for destroying the potential life of an unborn loggerhead turtle or bald eagle, and pays people for taking the potential life of unborn babies, that Nation has lost its way.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet this week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act.

The Committee on Financial Services ordered the bill reported without amendment on May 20, 2003, and filed its report with the House on June 2, 2003. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H312 of the Capitol by 3 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4.

Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as introduced on May 19, 2003. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format.

Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.