Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 869 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during the consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 869.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 869 provides for the consideration of H.J. Res. 69, a simple, 1-week extension of the fiscal year 2008 continuing resolution.

Madam Speaker, every Congress has the constitutional responsibility to be good stewards of the money entrusted to it by the American people. It is one of our most important responsibilities. Voters do not expect us to abdicate that responsibility, or any other, for that matter.

I am proud to say that we here in the House of Representatives have fulfilled our fiscal responsibility to the American people by passing all of our appropriations bills on time. We in the majority have been absolute in our promise to construct and pass spending bills with broad bipartisan support, and I am proud to say we have delivered on those promises.

Of the 12 fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills that have passed the House this year, we have garnered an average of 50 Republican votes, with one bill collecting as many as 187 votes from the minority. And in that spirit of working together, we have successfully pushed ahead our bold and new agenda and passed legislation that prioritizes veterans health care, education and energy independence.

Madam Speaker, we all agree that it is unfortunate that we are forced to pass a continuing resolution. But, it is something that must be done to work out the remaining issues that we have. We all understand it is our prime duty to make sure that the government is running efficiently, from our children who need quality education to our veterans who need the benefits promised to them when they signed up to serve our country, and to our senior citizens who need access to health care and affordable prescription drugs.

Many on the other side still fought tooth and nail, with some Members holding up the legislative process, in fighting these bipartisan appropriations bills, but we remained focused and strong and passed our bills on time.

It is important to note that continuing resolutions are extremely common, with a CR being enacted for every fiscal year since 1954. Additionally, Congress has averaged five continuing resolutions per year. And I would like to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that over the last 10 years of Republican control, the House has considered 75 continuing resolutions.

Madam Speaker, this is an important resolution that will allow us to do the work necessary to fulfill our promises to the American people, and I urge its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would ask my friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart, if he has any speakers.

We have no speakers, either, so if the gentleman would like to close, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 869 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 5. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

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

I ask unanimous consent, Madam Speaker, for the immediate consideration of House Resolution 836.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to include extraneous materials into the Record on H. Res. 836.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1119, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 1088. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 1088.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 806 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this point of order is not about whether or not to consider the rule on, ultimately, the funding of our troops, and indeed, the entire government, under a continuing resolution. In fact, I would say that it is simply an effort to try to kill the conference report, and on a faulty premise at that.

Every single earmark in this conference report has been properly disclosed in conformance with House rules. The blanket waiver against consideration of conference did not include a waiver of either clause 9 of rule XXI or House Resolution 491.

This parliamentary ruse won't work. We must consider this conference report, which fully supports our men and women, provides for our wounded warriors by providing for them and for their families, addresses the severe equipment shortfalls facing the National Guard and Reserves, and fully funds a pay increase for all servicemembers. In addition, this measure provides the funds necessary to respond to the wildfires of 2007 and provide continued disaster response and relief efforts.

Voting ``no'' on this question of consideration will prevent consideration of a critical package that has strong House and Senate bipartisan support.

So despite whatever roadblock the other side tries to use to stop the bill, we will stand up for our troops. We must consider this rule. We must pass this conference report today.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues and dear friends on the other side of the aisle that it was the democratic process and the Democrat Party that brought us section 491, and we are in complete compliance with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say that this conference report is the standard conference report, the standard rule, and passed the Rules Committee 13-0. There were no dissenting votes from the Republicans at all about this rule. The report has been available since Tuesday. It meets all requirements for layover.

I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 806.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 806 provides for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 3222, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the important parts that I hope will answer some questions here. The rule is the standard conference report rule which waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

However, I want to point out that although the rule waives all points of order, the conference report does not violate either House Resolution 491 or clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI which require earmarks to be disclosed in the conference report and requiring conference reports to be in compliance with the PAYGO rule.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I visited the family of a critically injured soldier at Bethesda Naval Medical Center, and I was reminded once again of a sign that stood outside a VA hospital in my former district, a sign that read, ``The price of liberty is visible here.''

This Monday, we will pay tribute to our brave men and women in uniform and remember that they truly are our country's greatest heroes. We must, therefore, do all we can to make certain that they receive the care and benefits that they have earned and the respect and recognition they deserve, not just today, but every single day.

I am proud to bring to the floor the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations legislation and a continuing resolution, the product of many months of hard work.

In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a smart and compassionate way to strengthen America's security and provide what is necessary for our troops.

We do so by investing in the safety and protection of our service men and women both at home and abroad, while providing them with the tools that are necessary to defend our country. This bill also invests in quality health care for military personnel and works to expand our Armed Forces to meet ever-changing threats to our national security.

The bill also determines how we as a Nation will spend our considerable resources, both at home and abroad, in order to best protect our fellow Americans, our shared values, and our common interests.

This agreement between the House and Senate prioritizes the preparation and safety of our Nation's men and women in uniform and, thus, honors our commitment to our military. It is a definitive statement that we will properly equip our troops before they deploy, provide them with support as they serve in harm's way, and ensure their dignified treatment upon their return.

To accomplish that goal, this bill provides $459 billion for the Department of Defense, a $39.7 billion or a 9.5 percent increase from 2007. The money allows us to invest in equipment, in training, and cutting-edge weaponry. Most importantly, however, it restores balance to our ground forces that are badly overstretched by 5 years of war and multiple extended deployments.

Make no mistake, our commitment to our fighting men and women does not end on the battlefield. It is our responsibility to ensure that each one is properly covered upon their return home. And I am proud to say that this bill does exactly that, by adding $70 million to fund programs authorized under the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act and providing $23.5 billion for defense health programs, which I must stress, is nearly $1 billion more than the President's request. And it is long overdue. Far too many veterans are left without the treatment that they need or have to wait far too long.

The dual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed an unimaginable strain on our military that will take many years to repair. To help remedy this problem, the conference report helps grow the military, including 7,000 new members of the Army, 5,000 new marines, and 1,300 new Army Guard to begin to help repair this strain.

It also fully funds a 3.5 percent pay increase for all servicemembers, and

while that is not nearly enough when low-level Blackwater contractors make as much money as four-star generals, it is a step forward.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, six U.S. soldiers were killed in three separate attacks across Iraq. Those tragic losses brought the number of U.S. soldiers killed to more than 850 this year, making 2007 the deadliest year of the war in Iraq. Let me repeat that. This year, the fifth year of combat in Iraq, is deadlier than any of the years that preceded it.

I would be remiss if I did not mention a New York Times article on a secret Pentagon study that found, and I hope everybody absorbs this, a secret study found that 80 percent of the marines who died of upper- body wounds in Iraq could have survived if they had been deployed with better body armor.

I was so deeply troubled by reports like these that I asked the Department of Defense's inspector general to investigate the Pentagon's procurement of both vehicle and body armor. The first report issued in July was heartbreaking in its tales of a manufacturer that was unable to produce the number of MRAP vehicles that it had committed to in its contract with DOD; ultimately, without doubt, costing some soldiers their very lives.

As we await the second report from the Pentagon on body armor procurement practices, the former CEO of one of those body armor manufacturers, David Brooks, was indicted on multiple counts of fraud by the United States Attorneys in eastern New York. He is accused of having enriched himself to the tune of over $180 million at the expense of the safety of our Armed Forces. I await the report from the inspector general on how that contract was given. It is unconscionable.

I am relieved to say in light of these findings, the conference report fittingly directs $11.6 billion to the procurement of MRAP vehicles and increases funding for the body armor and other protective equipment which I hope will be closely monitored by this Congress which is trying so hard to keep up with some oversight that has been missing for over 6 years.

The conference report today also provides all of those deploying, deployed, and returning with the resources that they, their families, and our veterans need to sustain them through a time of war. But all of the body armor in the world, all of the MRAPs, cannot stop the violence in Iraq and prevent the casualties and deaths of our young men and women facing combat in Iraq.

It is my fervent hope and desire that we can bring our troops home before next year becomes the deadliest year in this tragic war.

As we face troubles abroad, Mr. Speaker, we here at home are constantly reminded of the toll that the war in Iraq is taking on our national security. The dire shortage of National Guard equipment was underscored these past few weeks as America watched with horror the wildfires devastating Southern California.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported in May that only half of California's National Guard equipment was available because much of it, almost a billion dollars' worth, had been left in Iraq.

In my home State of New York, the National Guard is operating with 40 percent of its equipment and only 35 percent of its trucks and authorized vehicles. Simply put, we cannot afford to continue shortchanging our domestic priorities.

To help put our priorities and Nation back in order, Mr. Speaker, today we will provide $500 million to respond to the California wildfires, along with allocating $2.9 billion to FEMA for continued disaster relief efforts and $3 billion for the ``Road Home'' program to assist people who are still searching for homes damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Additionally, we add $980 million for the National Guard and Reserve to replenish their equipment which has become so strained due to our conflicts abroad.

Mr. Speaker, let us honor the service of our troops, their families, and America's veterans by passing this conference report and fulfilling our commitment to those who sacrifice so much.

I hope my colleagues will use the upcoming Veterans Day to reflect on what kind of an America they wish to create for future generations. And it is my hope that we in Congress take the question very seriously in the coming months and years ahead.

I have faith in this body, just as I have faith in this Nation, that we will possess the wisdom to do what is right and the courage to right what is wrong. The future of our national security depends on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the majority whip, Mr. Clyburn.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 806 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, today, as we recognize Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I am proud to introduce the Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Act. This important piece of legislation will ensure greater protections for service members and their families if they become victims of violence. It also will strengthen programs to prevent violence against fellow soldiers and military families.

Unfortunately, sexual assault and domestic violence are pervasive and serious problems

throughout all branches of the military. In March 2007, the Department of Defense (DoD) released their third annual sexual assault report, which stated that there were 2,947 allegations of sexual assaults reported in 2006; a 24 percent increase from 2005. In 2004, the DoD reported 9,000 incidents of spousal abuse. A 2005 Sexual Harassment and Assault Survey of the Service Academies found 6 percent of females and 1 percent of males said they were sexually assaulted in 2004-2005, and less than half the females who experienced sexual assault reported it. In this same survey, 60 percent of female cadets indicated sexual harassment was about the same as when they first enrolled at their academy.

While the DoD has been making efforts to improve its prevention and response to domestic and sexual violence, victim services remain incomplete and inconsistent among the various branches. There have been reports that victims advocates, charged with protecting the victim's rights, have been denied resources to do their job, and in some instances been forced off the base altogether. Furthermore, DoD policies are not codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and do not offer the same level of rights and protections afforded to civilian victims. Perhaps most importantly, victims are unable to seek confidential counseling and treatment without fear that their records might become public if they press charges against their assailant.

My bill, the Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Act, seeks to bring military law up to par with civilian laws by establishing a comprehensive approach for the military to address domestic violence and sexual assault among our soldiers. Specifically, this bill will:

Establish an Office of Victims Advocate (OVA) within DoD, bring the Family Advocacy Program under OVA, and create a Director of OVA to oversee and coordinate efforts to prevent and respond to cases of family violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking with the military and among military families;

Codify rights, restitution policies, treatment and other services for victims within the UCMJ, including creating comprehensive confidentiality protocols to protect the rights of victims within military law;

Strengthen policies for reporting, prosecuting and treating perpetrators of violence;

Create counseling and treatment programs through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The military should be at the forefront of prosecuting assailants and setting the highest standards for treatment of service men and women, or military family members, victimized by sexual assault and domestic violence. Our Armed Forces must be able to guarantee the most basic protections to ensure these victims can receive necessary counseling, treatment, and justice.

If a victim cannot access essential care for fear of stigma, threats to their career, or because they just do not know what resources are available, the military will continue to lose valuable female and male soldiers. These men and women who serve our country in uniform put themselves in harm's way to protect our Nation from threats at home and abroad. They deserve the same rights and protections as the civilians whose freedoms they protect. My bill ensures service members are adequately protected when dealing with the horrible tragedy of sexual assault or domestic violence.

Do not allow our brave service members to be victimized twice, once by their perpetrator and then again by the military's lack of appropriate, compassionate, and confidential treatment and response.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all Members to join me in cosponsoring the Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Act.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 774 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to point out this is not

about a point of order or unfunded mandates, but it is because this administration and many of the people in this House do not want to give health care to 10 million children.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 774, and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 774 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3963, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you on the floor this afternoon with mixed emotions. I along with a majority of Members of the House are disappointed that we have to reintroduce a bill, passed by enormous bipartisan support, which would have provided millions of children across the Nation with access to health care.

The memory of what took place here on the House floor a week ago today will not soon be forgotten. On that day, we saw a few Members stand in lockstep with the President and with that deny health care coverage for millions of our children.

However, coupled with my disappointment, Mr. Speaker, is the consuming feeling of promise. I have hope for those children, along with a belief that those Members who were unable to break away from the President's mistaken rhetoric will stand for what is right today and vote to overwhelmingly pass this vital legislation.

I feel strongly that what motivated me and so many of my colleagues to come to Washington in the first place was the thought that on any day a vote could be held that would improve the lives of millions of people throughout our country. And that is exactly the chance that we have been given here today.

We are again granted the chance to vote for a bill that will advance medical care in this country, improve the health of our youngest and neediest citizens, and offer new hope for literally millions of children who would otherwise be left without either.

I think everyone listening today recognizes the reality of the situation we face. Should we not act, the health care of millions of children will be yanked away on November 16. Not providing health care to millions of children when given the opportunity to do so is appalling, but to strip away benefits from those who currently have them is simply indefensible.

Mr. Speaker, in our vote to expand SCHIP last month, we made a genuine dent in one of the most shameful inadequacies of our health care system: the lack of coverage for millions of America's children.

Congress created the State Child Health Insurance Program in 1997 with broad bipartisan support, including some of my colleagues who now oppose it. As a result, over 6 million children currently have health care coverage that otherwise would not. In my home State of New York, over 400,000 children are enrolled, the second highest in the Nation.

The SCHIP reauthorization bill would preserve access to health care for 6 million children already enrolled in the program, while bringing desperately needed health care coverage to almost 4 million more children. As a result, in my home State of New York, an additional 268,000 children who need it will have health care coverage. That means they will be able to get their immunizations before starting school, or see the dentist when they have a toothache.

This new bill also makes changes by phasing out childless adults after 1 year, and also puts in a cap on children whose parents' income are over 300 percent above the poverty level. The bill also requires States to develop plans and implement recommended best practices for addressing crowd-out.

Make no mistake, 43 Governors from red States and blue, 69 Members of the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, 273 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in the House, and 81 percent of the American public, including a large majority of Republicans, support our bipartisan expansion of SCHIP.

Yet, presented with this overwhelming support from all sides, the President decided to dust off his veto pen and with it deny millions of children access to health care. In spite of the unquestionable benefits and in spite of the overwhelming popularity and accomplishments of this program, SCHIP is under attack.

We saw reprehensible smear attacks on families who were brought into the public eye to showcase the benefits of the program. In the face of the lifesaving chance that was bestowed on the family due to this program, the harshest rhetoric was not cast against the bill, but against this family, including the children.

We saw persons go to the home of one of the families and harass them in public, talk radio and blogs made wild and audacious accusations, and we even saw staffers on Capitol Hill who clearly intended to assist this fabricated, coldhearted smear campaign.

It is simply beyond comprehension to me that many are willing to score political points by denigrating our Nation's children, particularly those who owe their very lives to this program.

But the American people saw through the attacks. They understood that the health of our Nation's children is simply not worth scoring a few political points.

Mr. Speaker, the President chastises the $35 billion bill, which is fully paid for, as ``too expensive.'' And with the same breath, he seeks an additional $190 billion for the Iraq war, all of which is at the expense of the taxpayer.

This is simply unconscionable when you realize the amount of money it takes to provide the health care for 10 million children for an entire year is what we spend in Iraq in just 41 days. We need to get our priorities straight.

I am enormously proud of the accomplishments we have done this year, from education to health care, but nothing means more to us than SCHIP. The American people expect us to tackle this health challenge before us. Last week we fell short of overturning the veto by just 13 votes. To those Members who know that providing health care to vulnerable children is the right thing to do, I say to you: Join with Democrats and Republicans and with the American people in passing the bill today.

Healthy children make a healthy Nation, Mr. Speaker. I hope every Member takes a long and hard look at the bill that we are presenting today and sees not just the words and the numbers, but the faces of 10 million children whose fate they hold in their very hands.

It is time to put principles before politics. It is time to stand in defiance of misplaced priorities. And it is time to vote with our Nation's children and provide them with the health care they need and deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend this bill and the children of America.

It has been painful for me to hear the mischaracterizations again of this bill. In the first place, adults will have 1 more year on this bill. And let me remind everybody listening that the only reason adults are on there is because the Bush administration gave States the right to do it. They will all be gone within 1 year. Nobody will be moved off of private insurance onto the Federal insurance. The bill even allows States to give money to private insurance companies to keep the children on those rolls.

I've never heard so much obfuscation, even praising tobacco for medical people to try to stop taking care of America's children. A healthy group of children growing up in this country will absolutely redound on every one of us by the benefits that we will get from it.

It is a tragedy to me, it is something that none of us should be able to even tolerate the thought of, that there are children in this country that don't have the vaccinations, that don't have the health care they need, that they are prevented from getting doctors appointments because they have no way to pay for them.

It is an obligation if ever there was one. We have an opportunity to do it. It is paid for. We're not asking to increase the debt or anything else. It is a bill that deserves the vote of every Member of the Congress, and the President's signature, if ever there was one.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the ordering of the yeas and nays on approval of the Journal be vacated to the end that the Journal stand approved by the earlier voice vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1483, a bill amending the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996.

The bill reauthorizes already existing national heritage areas. Most important to me and my district, and I think to the country, the bill authorizes the creation of the Niagara Falls Heritage Area. This truly is a monumental day for the city of Niagara Falls, the surrounding communities and the millions of people who visit Niagara Falls each year.

Every time I drive across my congressional district, I am reminded how fortunate I am to represent such a beautiful part of the country. From the shores of Lake Ontario to our vineyards and apple orchards, Mother Nature has bestowed some of her finest treasures upon western New York. But none is as widely recognized at home and around the world as Niagara Falls.

Every year more than 15 million people travel to Niagara Falls to take in this awe-inspiring natural phenom- enon. It is high time, Mr. Speaker, that the national treasures that are Niagara Falls and the Niagara River be granted the official status they have long deserved, that of a national heritage area.

Niagara Falls has always been a source of energy for our region. I don't need to remind you that it is the foremost source of hydroelectric power in North America as well as the birthplace of modern hydroelectric power.

This bill will help to solidify Niagara Falls' standing as something more, an engine for the revitalization and promotion of our region's natural, historic and scenic resources to residents and visitors alike. We are not ashamed of that.

We have, obviously, one of the areas of the country most devastated economically. As you know, the heritage area designation ties together private and public lands linked by geography and history. With the approval of this designation, the National Park Service

will assist our local and State organizations to develop and implement a plan to conserve and promote Niagara's natural attributes. Niagara Falls is one of the seven natural wonders of the world. We should all cherish it. The benefits are obvious for all to see.

Madam Speaker, I simply want to say that I did hear my colleague say how concerned we all were about corruption and how much we really wanted to do about it. Unfortunately, for the past 3 years nothing on your side was done about it. It was never looked into, despite the fact that our side brought it up numerous times, trying to get bills to the floor and trying to discuss what was going on in Iraq in terms of the loss of taxpayer money. I regret that that has not been acknowledged. This is the first time that we have literally brought up the actual corruption in the Iraq Government.

I simply want to say that the purpose of this resolution is to call attention to the fact that the State Department of the United States of America has refused to respond to subpoenas from a congressional committee. And if we are going to have a free flow of discussion on Iraq and corruption, as my colleague suggested, then we need to have the State Department give us the documents that we need to be able to do so. That is the purpose for this resolution, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on all sides from everyone who really wants this full discussion.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 742 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 742 provides for consideration of H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

I rise to speak today on one of the most critical issues that faces our democracy, the freedom of the press and the sacred historic protection afforded to journalists allowing them not to reveal their sources.

Understanding this, in 1799, one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, said, ``Our citizens may be deceived for a while, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light.''

Madam Speaker, with the birth of this new Nation came a government that was designed to be open and transparent to its people and held accountable for its actions. America's Founding Fathers established and implemented a system of checks and balances to ensure that one branch of government could not unilaterally impose its will on the others, aggressively overstep its authority, or greedily infringe upon the rights of its citizens.

Beyond the checks and balances of government is an often overlooked, but equally important, element of our system: the freedom of the press. Embodied in the first amendment, this right grants active citizens and vocal journalists the power to expose corruption and misbehavior committed by those elected and appointed to office. They serve as protectors of our democracy and work to make up for our system's failings where they exist.

Ensuring the free flow of information and providing protection for whistleblowers is vital to a free society. The Watergate scandal epitomized the value of the free press and, with it, the need to protect the relationship between journalists and their confidential sources.

For a moment, I would like my colleagues to consider a reality in which journalists could routinely be forced to reveal the names of their informants, and where sources could undoubtedly become reluctant to share important information that is unknown to the public.

Think of the scandals that journalists have revealed just in the last few years: The Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine prisons across Eastern Europe; Jack Abramoff's trading expensive troops for political favor from lawmakers; our veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan to dilapidated, unsafe, unsanitary facilities at Walter Reed Medical Center. Make no mistake, confidential sources made these reports possible.

And I would be remiss if I did not ask my colleagues, would we rather be unaware of these incidents because shield laws don't exist and our reporters are too afraid of prosecution when doing their jobs?

The past 6 years have produced one disturbing reminder after another that the legitimacy of our government and the integrity of our democracy are dependent on the ability of journalists to protect their sources. From uncovering the horrifying incidents of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib to revealing the administration's covert domestic spying program, the press managed to expose illegal actions by the executive branch when Congress refused to do so.

The public has long valued this relationship as critical to the functioning of an open and free media. Unfortunately, the court record has been more mixed.

In December of 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the journalist- source relationship is not protected under the Constitution. That ruling has allowed journalists to be forced to testify before grand juries about their sources. In response, individual States across the country enacted their own journalist shield laws to guarantee that a member of the press can continue to maintain their anonymous sources without fear of prosecution.

In fact, 49 States and the District of Columbia all provide some form of shield law. But there is still no Federal statute providing uniformity. Now, recent Federal court cases are, again,

challenging the critically important relationship between journalists and their sources, arguing that State interests supersede those of a free press.

And according to The Washington Post, in recent years, more than 40 reporters have been questioned about their sources, notes and stories in civil and criminal cases.

The Free Flow of Information Act before us today would, for the first time on the Federal level, explicitly protect journalists and their sources from the kind of vengeful legal actions that threaten to keep all those necessary whistles unblown.

Unless Congress passes a comprehensive shield law that will guarantee the rights of journalists to speak with anonymous sources and ensure their confidentiality, the freedom of the press will be undermined along with the public good it has the power to defend. Any such bill must, of course, take into account the legitimate needs of our government, and this bill does that.

Madam Speaker, should we in any way compromise the freedom of the press, we will deny our citizens their right to be informed about their government and retreat from the true nature of the political system that made our government unique. Our forefathers saw fit to enshrine this belief in the very first sentences of our Bill of Rights, and this Congress must continue to guarantee those rights.

And today, Madam Speaker, as we debate extending these protections to the press, we must pause to remind the press of their obligation to the public.

I regret to say that, for much of the recent past, some of the press, which was intended to be the watchdog of our government, quickly transformed into nothing more than a mouthpiece, exemplified in its coverage and lack of questions on the Iraq war.

Madam Speaker, we saw time and time again the tough questions expected by the American people before and after the invasion in Iraq replaced with nothing more than patriotic propaganda and White House talking points.

Embedded journalists were fed information and painted rosy scenarios of our invasion and occupation. Those who were skeptical and challenged this spoon-fed information were discredited and sometimes even fired for so much as questioning the actions of the war and this government.

Thomas Jefferson said, again, and I quote, ``The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood.''

With all the wonderful protections of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the press must not only be vigilant, but it must be courageous.

And we all remember that it is the prime directive of the press to inform the people. It is their duty to ask the tough questions when the American people are unable to do so. It is their responsibility to shine light on government actions, secret or mundane, and to hold it accountable.

And let me finish by asking this simple question. Will the press pay as much attention to Blackwater as they did to Whitewater? I certainly hope so.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a momentous day for the House. We have before us today a resolution that has been approved by both sides of the aisle, worked on with great consideration as concerns the Constitution. We are very happy to present it today. We think its importance is certainly easily explained and necessary.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 742 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 935, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 677 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 677.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 677 provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 52, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against the joint resolution and against its consideration except for clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

The rule also provides that the joint resolution shall be considered as read. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, every Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be good stewards of the money sent to us by the American people. And I am proud to say that we here in the House of Representatives have fulfilled our fiscal responsibility to the American people by passing all of our appropriations bills on time.

We, in the new majority, have been absolute in our promise to construct and pass spending bills with broad bipartisan support, and I am proud to say that we have delivered on those promises.

Of the 12 fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills that passed the House this year, we have garnered an average of 50 Republican votes. In a spirit of working together, we have successfully pushed ahead our bold and new agenda and passed legislation that prioritize veterans, health care, education and energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res 677 provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 52, as I said before, for continuing appropriations for the year 2008.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

I have no requests for time.

Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to say simply for the record that there are no earmarks in this bill and that everybody knows it.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 677 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

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